Annual Wage Review 2015–16

[2016] FWCFB 3500

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.285 - Annual wage review

Annual Wage Review 2015–16
(C2016/1)

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON
DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON
MR COLE
PROFESSOR RICHARDSON
MR GIBBS

MELBOURNE, 31 MAY 2016

Contents

Paragraph
1.	Overview and the Decision	[1]
2.	The Statutory Framework	[110]
3.	The Parties’ Proposals	[153]
4.	The Economy	[187]
5.	Relative Living Standards and the Needs of the Low Paid	[350]
6.	Promoting Social Inclusion through Increased Workforce Participation	[464]
7.	Encouraging Collective Bargaining	[519]
8.	Equal Remuneration	[542]
9.	Other Matters	[580]
10.	Conclusion	[660]
Appendix 1—Research for Annual Wage Reviews
Appendix 2—Proposed Minimum Wages Adjustments
Appendix 3—Index of Material
Appendix 4—List of Appearances

Abbreviations

2009–10 Review	Annual Wage Review 2009–10
2010–11 Review	Annual Wage Review 2010–11
2012 ERO	Social, Community and Disability Services Industry Equal Remuneration Order 2012
2012–13 Review	Annual Wage Review 2012–13
2013–14 Review	Annual Wage Review 2013–14
2014–15 Review	Annual Wage Review 2014–15
2016–17 Review	Annual Wage Review 2016–17
AAWI	average annualised wage increases
ABI	Australian Business Industrial and the NSW Business Chamber Ltd
ABS	Australian Bureau of Statistics
ACCER	Australian Catholic Council for Employment Relations
ACCI	Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
ACOSS	Australian Council of Social Service
Act	Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
ACTU	Australian Council of Trade Unions
AFEI	Australian Federation of Employers and Industries
AFPC	Australian Fair Pay Commission
AHA & TAA	Australian Hotels Association and Tourism Accommodation Australia
Ai Group	The Australian Industry Group
ANZ	Australia and New Zealand Banking Group
APCS	Australian Pay and Classification Scale
ARA	Australian Retailers Association
Award-reliant industries	The five industries with the highest proportion of employees within the industry who are reliant on award rates of pay according to ABS, Employee Earnings and Hours, Australia, May 2014, Catalogue No. 6306.0:Accommodation and food services, Administrative and support services,Health care and social assistance, Other services and Retail trade
AWE	average weekly earnings
AWOTE	average weekly ordinary time earnings
AWR	Annual Wage Review
AWRS	Australian Workplace Relations Study
Australian PCI	Australian Industry Group/Housing Industry Association Australian Performance of Construction Index
Australian PMI	Australian Industry Group Australian Performance of Manufacturing Index
Australian PSI	Australian Industry Group Australian Performance of Services Index
Business Equipment Award	Business Equipment Award 2010
C1(b)	Professional Engineer/Professional Scientist, Metal, Engineering and Associated Industries Award 1998
C2(b)	Principal Technical Officer, Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010
C4	Engineering Associate/ Laboratory Technical Officer—Level 1, Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010
C5	Advanced Engineering Tradesperson—Level II Engineering/Laboratory Technician—Level V, Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010
C7	Engineering/ Manufacturing Tradesperson—Special Class Level II, Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010 Engineering/Laboratory Technician—Level III, Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010
C8	Engineering/ Manufacturing Tradesperson—Special Class Level I, Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010
C10	Engineering/Manufacturing Tradesperson—Level 1, Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010
C14	Engineering/Manufacturing Employee—Level 1, Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010
CCIQ	Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland
CCIWA	Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia
CGE	Computable General Equilibrium
COE	Characteristics of Employment
Commission	Fair Work Commission
CPI	Consumer Price Index
EEBTUM	Employee Earnings, Benefits and Trade Union Membership
EEH	Survey of Employee Earnings and Hours
FMW	Federal Minimum Wage
FOB	Free on board
GDP	gross domestic product
GFC	global financial crisis
GSS	General Social Survey
GVA	gross value added
HES	Household Expenditure Survey
HIA	Housing Industry Association
HILDA	Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia
ILO	International Labour Organization
Indicator	Department of Employment’s Monthly Leading Indicator of Employment
L4	Professional, Professional Employees Award 2010
LCI	Living Cost Index
Manufacturing Award	Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010
Metal Industry Award	Metal, Engineering and Associated Industries Award 1998
MGA	Master Grocers Australia
Miscellaneous Award	Miscellaneous Award 2010
MTAs	Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce; Tasmanian Automobile Chamber of Commerce; Motor Traders’ Association of New South Wales; Motor Trade Association of South Australia; and Motor Trade Association of Western Australia
NAB	National Australia Bank
NES	National Employment Standards
NFF	National Farmers’ Federation
NMW	national minimum wage
NRA	National Retail Association
NSA	Newstart Allowance
NTWS	National Training Wage Schedule
OECD	Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Panel	Expert Panel for annual wage reviews
PC	Productivity Commission
PC Report	Productivity Commission (2015), Workplace Relations Framework, Final Report, December
R&CA	Restaurant and Catering Australia
RBA	Reserve Bank of Australia
Research Report 1/2016	Mavromaras K, Sloane P and Zhu R (National Institute of Labour Studies) (2016), An international comparison of minimum wages and labour market outcomes, Research Report 1/2016, Fair Work Commission, February
Research Report 6/2013	Wright S and Buchanan J (2013), Award reliance, Research Report 6/2013, Fair Work Commission, December
Research Report 6/2010	Dunn A and Bray G (2010), Minimum wage transitional instruments under the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009, Research Report 06/2010, Fair Work Australia, June
Review	Annual Wage Review 2015–16
RNNDI	Real net national disposable income
SACS Award	Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Industry Award 2010
SPRC	Social Policy Research Centre
Statistical Report	Statistical Report—Annual Wage Review 2015–16
SWSS	Supported Wage System Schedule
Transitional Act	Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 (Cth)
Treasury	Commonwealth Treasury
UK	United Kingdom
US	United States (of America)
WGEA	Workplace Gender Equality Agency
WPI	Wage Price Index
WR Act	Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)

1. Overview and the Decision

Introduction

[1] The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)(Act) requires the Expert Panel (Panel) to conduct and complete a review of the national minimum wage (NMW) and of minimum wages in modern awards in each financial year. The Panel must make a national minimum wage order and may set, vary or revoke modern award minimum wages. This decision deals with the Annual Wage Review 2015–16 (Review) and directly affects over 1.86 million employees in Australia who are award reliant. 1

[2] The Act sets out some important procedural fairness requirements for the Review. The Panel must ensure that all persons and bodies (referred to collectively as parties) are given a reasonable opportunity to make and reply to written submissions. In this Review, a number of parties took this opportunity by lodging one or more written submissions and participating in consultations on 10 and 11 May 2016. The timetable for the Review and all of the submissions, transcript, research reports, and some additional economic data were published on the Fair Work Commission’s (Commission) website to ensure that all parties had a reasonable opportunity to participate. The Panel considered all the material received from parties and the published research and data in making its decision.

[3] This Chapter summarises the matters we have considered, our reasoning and the increase we have decided upon. A detailed discussion of these matters is provided in the subsequent Chapters.

The Panel’s approach

[4] The Panel is required to conduct each AWR within the legislative framework of the Act, particularly the object of this Act in s.3, the modern awards objective in s.134(1) and the minimum wages objective in s.284(1). The relevant statutory considerations are discussed in some detail in Chapter 2. The Panel’s task is to consider relevant statutory matters in the context of the prevailing economic and social environment in order to make its decision in the Review. 2

[5] As part of the Review, the Panel considers both the setting of the NMW rate and whether to make any determinations varying modern award minimum wages. These tasks are undertaken by reference to the particular statutory criteria applicable to each function. As part of its decision making process, the Panel first forms a view about the NMW rate it proposes to set in the Review and then takes that proposal into account in exercising its powers to set, vary or revoke modern award minimum rates, as it is required to do by s.285(2).

[6] Chapters 4–8 of this decision deal with the statutory considerations we are required to take into account. We do not repeat all of that material here but the views expressed in this Chapter should be seen in the context of our decision as a whole.

[7] In taking into account available economic and social data, the Panel’s approach is to assess the changes in these data over the past year and to consider longer-term trends in order to determine how they inform the statutory criteria.

[8] In assessing the various economic considerations, the Panel takes into account both actual data and forecasts. The actual indicators are the primary considerations because, by their nature, they are more reliable than forecasts. But it is also appropriate to have regard to future projections that cast some light on the circumstances expected to apply during the period when any adjustment will operate. It is not uncommon for actual outcomes to differ from those forecast. The Annual Wage Review 2012–13 (2012–13 Review) decision set out how the Panel deals with those differences:

“To the extent that the forecast economic indicators do not ultimately reflect the actual performance of the economy, this forms part of our broad assessment and our consideration of the actual indicators in subsequent reviews. Importantly, when considering both actual and forecast indicators, the Panel pays particular attention to trends, because of the volatility in some of the economic indicators.” 3

[9] To the extent that the “broad assessment” includes a comparison of past forecasts with actual economic outcomes, this is not undertaken to enable some sort of quantifiable adjustment to minimum wage outcomes. As the Panel has previously observed, a mechanistic approach such as this would not be consistent with the statutory framework. Rather, the Panel considers all information about the economic and social environment that is available (including forecasts and any divergence from prior forecasts) to inform its decision.

[10] When evaluating developments in the economy, the labour market, relative living standards and the needs of the low paid, collective bargaining and equal remuneration, we routinely look to developments over the medium and long term, as well as to changes over the past year. This is evident in the material that is included in the Statistical Report—Annual Wage Review 2015–16 (Statistical Report) that accompanies the Review. Our capacity to take both a contemporary and a longer-term perspective is determined by the available data. A focus on developments over the past 12 months enables us to see how things have changed since the previous Review decision. The longer-term perspective reduces our reliance on contemporary data that can be volatile and subject to error. It also enables us to see the cumulative effects of the annual changes that we focus on, including our own decisions.

[11] The Productivity Commission (PC), in its Workplace Relations Framework Final Report (PC Report), addressed the Panel’s decision making process:

“… the conceptual approach of the FWC’s [Fair Work Commission’s] Expert Panel is to have a prior view (often established from past reviews) that must be dislodged by a fresh and compelling piece of evidence, and that absent that, the prior holds. Accordingly, in many cases, the FWC indicates that it is ‘not persuaded’ (or some similar kind of words) that some past proposition is untrue—effectively putting the onus of proof on a dissenting party. The requirement for new evidence to overturn a prior is reasonable if the prior has strong empirical and theoretical foundations but, in industrial relations as practiced for decades, this is not likely to be the case. It would often be better if the FWC Expert Panel itself re-investigated its priors, and did so, regardless of whether any party had adduced evidence on the matter.” 4

[12] At the outset we would observe that it is unclear what “priors” the PC is referring to and, further, there is some tension between the above statement and some later observations in the PC Report. In particular, the PC Report also states that the Panel should articulate exactly how its decisions are reached and must see its role as “informing participants how it could be expected to arrive at decisions in the future, in order that they can improve the quality of evidence that the FWC has previously found wanting.” 5

[13] Two points may be made about the latter observation. The first is that informing participants about how the Panel could be expected to arrive at its decisions in the future is inconsistent with the proposition that the Panel should essentially conduct each Review on a “blank canvas” basis by an active process of reviewing “priors”.

[14] The second point is that, contrary to the suggestion in the PC Report, the Panel does inform parties of the deficiencies in the quality of their evidence so that it may be improved. For example, in the 2012–13 Review decision, the Panel provided guidance as to the requirements for survey evidence. 6

[15] Unlike the PC, the Panel is not conducting an inquiry into a particular issue with a view to making recommendations to the Australian Government. The Panel undertakes a regulatory function of which the end result will affect the rights and responsibilities of the employees who are covered by the NMW order or a modern award and their employers. The nature of the function and the powers exercised by the Panel bring with it important procedural fairness requirements and an obligation to deliver substantive justice.

[16] In our view, the observation set out in the PC Report misunderstands the role of precedent in ensuring substantive justice and in informing participants of how they can expect the Panel to arrive at decisions. 7 As the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) points out in its submission,8 the approach of the Panel—as outlined at paragraph [7] in the Annual Wage Review 2014–15 (2014–15 Review) decision—reflects the nature of judicial reasoning that underpins the rule of law. Broadly speaking, differently constituted Panels should evaluate the evidence and submissions before them in accordance with a consistent and stable interpretation of the legislative framework.

[17] As the High Court has observed, justice requires consistency in decisions unless a difference can be articulated and applied:

“The law must keep an order and form which admit of practical application, for justice requires both consistency in decisions and discrimination between cases on bases that can be articulated and applied.” 9

[18] These public policy considerations inform the way AWRs are conducted. This does not mean that the Panel’s consideration of the statutory framework is stagnant. As the Panel made clear in the Annual Wage Review 2013–14 (2013–14 Review) decision, 10 there is nothing wrong with a party advancing a submission that a past Panel decision had wrongly construed a statutory provision and advancing an alternate construction. The Panel has reconsidered past decisions regarding the interpretation of particular provisions. For example, in the 2012–13 Review decision, the Panel accepted an ACCI submission that past decisions had wrongly concluded that “social inclusion”, in the context of s.284(1)(b), encompassed both the obtaining of employment and the pay and conditions attaching to the job concerned. The Panel accepted that its consideration of “social inclusion”, in the context of s.284(1)(b) was limited to increased workforce participation.11

[19] The above observation is also apposite to the Panel’s consideration of all of the issues before it. In conducting a Review, the Panel is engaged in a constant process of evaluating past assumptions and findings on the basis of contemporary data and the available evidence. Contrary to the assumption made in the PC Report, 12 the Panel is not a passive observer in this process; it is an active participant. Since the commencement of the Act, the Commission has published 29 internal and commissioned research reports. The research has been both quantitative and qualitative and covers topics such as award reliance, the labour market, business performance, earnings, relative living standards and apprentices, all of which are relevant to the minimum wages and modern awards objectives. A complete list of the published research is set out at Appendix 1.

[20] In addition to these reports, the Commission also publishes the Statistical Report, containing a broad range of economic and social indicators, and a Research reference list, which referred to 91 relevant papers this year.

[21] The Commission’s capacity to undertake internal or commissioned research is, of course, subject to budgetary constraints. Present indications are that such constraints are likely to limit the Commission’s capacity to undertake additional research in the short to medium term.

[22] ACCI also made some observations about the Panel’s decision making process. In its 30 March 2016 submission, ACCI accepted that “simple rules such as real wage maintenance … cannot capture the full range of considerations that the Panel must take into account” 13 and that “the Panel’s judgments about the relative importance of particular considerations are difficult to fully explain”.14 ACCI submitted that transparency required that:

“The Panel should explain in its decision the basis on which it differed from prior decisions and the manner in which the mix of statutory considerations in the current context differed from prior considerations. Continued emphasis on explaining the interplay of the factors that are brought to account is commended.” 15

[23] The above extract neatly encapsulates what the Panel attempts to do in its decision. ACCI goes on to submit as follows:

“Whilst judgments are not always able to be fully explained, that issue should give added impetus to the Panel to disclose the factors which are most relevant, and quantifying how the Panel’s decision would have changed if key variables had been different. Although there is always more than one factor which changes from year to year, this sort of analysis would make the Panel’s decisions more transparent and improve the relevance of submissions in subsequent years.

The Australian Chamber accepts that the range of considerations the Panel must take into account means broad judgment is to be exercised in weighing the relative importance of different considerations, but that does not preclude quantification of the weight given to the most important considerations. Continuation and refinement of that process is commended.” 16

[24] In a further submission, ACCI elaborated on this point, stating that “there is consonance between the view expressed by the Productivity Commission and the intent of the point raised in the 30 March 2016 submission”. 17

[25] The PC Report observation to which ACCI referred is the comment that there was scope for the Panel to enhance its approach to AWRs by: adopting a more targeted approach to assessing and determining award minimum wages; explicitly recognising and measuring trade-offs between the different elements of the minimum wage and modern award objectives; and considering the effect of determinations on all affected parties. 18 In terms of assessing trade-offs, the PC considered the Panel should weigh “the benefits of increased earnings for the low-paid against the potentially slower employment growth from more generous increases in minimum wages”.19 While acknowledging that decisions on minimum wages cannot be reduced to a “simple formulaic approach”, the PC stated that:

“While judgment will always be necessary, scientific methodologies can provide the metrics and processes for assessing the consequences of different minimum wage and award review decisions, and can ensure that decisions are, as much as possible, informed, transparent, logical, substantiated and consistent.” 20

[26] The PC Report provided no detail as to the “scientific methodologies” available to provide “the metrics and processes for assessing the consequences of different minimum wage and award review decisions”. 21 Indeed, as the PC Report also observes:

“The economic literature on the employment effects of minimum wages does not provide a simple and universal answer.” 22

“On top of these theoretical complexities, there are several empirical obstacles that together can bedevil attempts to gauge the effects of minimum wages on employment …” 23

“Estimates of the impact of minimum wages on employment and hours worked vary in direction as well as in size and the conclusions drawn from this body of research can appear contradictory and are often the subject of dispute …” 24

“… while the (Australian) studies provide an indication of the likely direction of change, they provide neither definitive evidence nor clear guidance on the magnitude of any employment effects that would result from future changes in Australia’s minimum wages.” 25

“The Productivity Commission’s examination suggests that it is not currently possible to arrive at a straight-forward and definitive conclusion about the effects of changes in Australian minimum wages on employment levels or hours worked.” 26

[27] The matters raised by ACCI and the PC Report regarding the Panel’s decision making process were put as questions to all parties on 28 April 2016. No other party supported the proposition that the Panel should disclose how its decision would have changed if key variables had been different.

[28] We agree with the proposition (advanced by ACCI) that the Panel should disclose the factors which are most relevant in a particular year, and we have done so in this decision. We also accept that the Panel’s decision-making process should be as transparent as possible. This can be seen as an iterative process. For example, ACCI submitted that the Panel should consider short and medium-term trends when analysing youth unemployment and give greater consideration to this matter in its decisions. 27 We have responded to this suggestion by considering, at paragraphs [281]-[282] the youth unemployment rate, and its relationship to aggregate unemployment over the past decade and the trends in the youth labour market over a five-year period identified in the 2014–15 Review decision.28

[29] However, we do not propose to quantify how the Panel’s decision would have changed if key variables had been different. Such a hypothetical exercise is neither feasible, nor appropriate. The range of considerations the Panel is required to take into account usually vary from year to year and it would be an arid exercise to embark on a hypothetical assessment of what the Panel would do in a different set of circumstances. Such an exercise may also give rise to procedural fairness issues.

[30] Nor do we intend to quantify the weight given to particular considerations, though we will identify the most significant issues which have been impacted on the Panel’s decision in each particular Review.

[31] In past Review decisions, the Panel has addressed submissions calling for specific factors to be quantified. In the 2012–13 Review decision, 29 the Panel addressed submissions from The Australian Industry Group (Ai Group) and the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) to quantify the discount to be applied to any minimum wage adjustment for that year due to the 0.25 per cent increase in the superannuation guarantee. The Panel stated that the current legislative framework does not support an approach that quantifies each element, rather, minimum wage adjustment involves broad judgment:

“… we have not applied a direct, quantifiable, discount to the minimum wage increase, as proposed by Ai Group and the NFF. As we have noted, the AIRC [Australian Industrial Relations Commission] decisions following the introduction of the SGC [Superannuation Guarantee Charge] Acts provide no support for such an approach. Nor does the current legislative framework support such an approach. In reviewing modern award minimum wages and the NMW the Act requires us to have regard to a range of considerations. As we note in Chapter 2, there is a degree of overlap between the matters specified in the modern awards objective, the minimum wages objective and the objects of the Act. To the extent that these matters are of direct relevance to the Review, they may be grouped into three broad categories: economic; social; and collective bargaining. The range of considerations we are required to take into account calls for the exercise of broad judgment, rather than a mechanistic approach to minimum wage fixation.” 30

[32] The wide range of data and information before the Panel and the often complex interaction between these factors mean that a comparison between AWRs will rarely be straightforward. There is no formulaic relationship between changes in particular indicators or factors over time and the outcome of AWRs. While the Panel seeks to explain its view of the circumstances (including forecasts or projections) prevailing in each AWR in comparison with previous years, it is not feasible to quantify the weight given to particular factors in balancing the various considerations prescribed by the Act. This also explains why proposals premised on a fixed relationship between the rate of inflation and minimum wages directed towards real wage maintenance are not consistent with the statutory framework.

[33] We now turn to the economic, social and collective bargaining considerations which we must take into account.

Economic considerations

[34] Both the minimum wages objective and the modern awards objective require us to take into account various economic considerations. The underlying intention of these provisions is that the Panel takes into account the effect of its decisions on national economic prosperity and in doing so gives particular emphasis to the economic indicators specifically mentioned in the relevant statutory provisions.

[35] Economic growth, while slightly below trend, has continued at a reasonable level, improving over the second half of 2015 and outstripping growth in each of the seven major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) economies. Real gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 3.0 per cent over the year to the December quarter 2015, compared with 2.2 per cent over the year to the December quarter 2014.

[36] Over the five years to 2014–15, labour productivity growth in the market sector was higher than the five years prior. Over the year to the December quarter 2015, GDP per hour worked fell by 0.4 per cent, following an unusually large increase in hours worked over that year. GDP per hour worked grew over each of the preceding four years. Gross value added (GVA) per hour worked for the market sector grew by 0.9 per cent over the past year.

[37] The shares of wages and profits in total income have barely changed over the past three decades in the non-mining part of the economy. In the mining sector, they have returned to close to their more usual levels in the past two years. After falling sharply in the 2000s, with the peaking of the terms of trade, the wages share started to recover in 2011 and has since been relatively flat. The profits share has fallen back in recent years. Company gross operating profits grew by 2.8 per cent for non-mining industries over the year to the December quarter 2015 which is above the average for the past five years, and fell by 14.9 per cent in the Mining industry.

[38] There is no evidence of particular corporate stress. Business bankruptcy rates and business exit rates were at relatively low levels in 2014–15. Business bankruptcy rates in 2014–15 were at their lowest level for the past decade.

[39] All measures of inflation remain at historically low levels. The headline Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose by 1.3 per cent, underlying inflation increased by 1.5 per cent (average of the trimmed and weighted mean) and the Living Cost Index (LCI) for employee households increased by 1.1 per cent over the year to the March quarter 2016.

[40] Each of the measures of wages reflects continued historically low aggregate wages growth. Over the year to the December quarter 2015, the Wage Price Index (WPI) increased by 2.2 per cent and the average weekly ordinary time earnings (AWOTE) by 1.6 per cent. Bargaining outcomes, reflected in average annual wage increases (AAWI), grew by 3.0 per cent in the December quarter 2015. Over the year to the December quarter 2015, nominal unit labour costs rose by 0.3 per cent seasonally adjusted and real unit labour costs increased by 0.9 per cent.

[41] The increase in employment, the age-adjusted participation rate and the employment to population ratio all point to improvements in the labour market. The absolute levels of these indicators are also quite favourable. The recent falls in unemployment, in long-term unemployment and in unemployment among youth are consistent with the picture of improved labour market conditions over the course of 2015 and into 2016. The award-reliant industries have had a mixed experience, with three of the five having healthy levels of increases in employment while the other two had falls.

[42] In contrast to the generally strong labour market performance over the course of 2015, reflected across a range of labour market indicators and the continuing employment growth in 2016, the reduction in hours worked recorded between December 2015 and April 2016 suggests some weakness in labour market conditions. The reduced hours worked in the first months of 2016 primarily reflects a decline in the average hours worked by full-time employees and, to a lesser degree, a continuing shift from full-time to part-time employment. This suggests that it is caused more by the ongoing changes in the structure of the economy and reduced pressures in the mining sector, rather than by some more general weakness in the demand for labour. Having regard to the reason for the decline in hours worked and the broader information about labour market conditions, we do not think that it seriously undermines the broader information about the labour market. Nonetheless, it is a relevant consideration we have taken into account in assessing labour market conditions and the broader economic circumstances. The significant revisions to the hours worked data in the April 2016 ABS Labour Force Survey reinforce reservations about the reliability of monthly Labour Force data. We will be better informed about the fall in hours worked in the early part of 2016 when further information becomes available.

[43] The transition in the economy from the mining sector to the more labour-intensive service sectors has been evident in the strength and composition of employment growth in recent years, with most of the growth in total employment occurring in the service sectors of the economy, with the Retail trade and Health care and social assistance industries contributing most to aggregate employment growth.

[44] The employment to population ratio for people aged 20–64 years rose over each of the past two years, to 75.4 per cent in March 2016, although it remains below its peak in December 2010. The participation rate of people aged 20–64 years was higher in December 2015 than in any time over the last decade for both men and women and it rose by 0.2 percentage points over the year to March 2016.

[45] The improved labour market over the past year has arrested the persistent increase in unemployment since the global financial crisis (GFC) and brought about a moderate reduction in unemployment. The total number of unemployed persons has fallen by 37 200 (or 4.9 per cent) over the year to April 2016, and the unemployment rate has fallen by 0.4 percentage points, from 6.1 per cent in April 2015 to 5.7 per cent in April 2016.

[46] As employment growth strengthened and overall unemployment fell over the course of 2015 and into 2016, so too did the under-employment rate, long-term unemployment and the youth unemployment rate. Over the past 10 years, under-employment and unemployment have moved together, and the addition of one to the other does not alter the essential interpretation of changes in the state of the labour market.

[47] We accept that small businesses are more award reliant than larger businesses and will be particularly affected by changes in award rates of pay; have less capacity to adjust to adverse changes in business conditions; and have found it harder to bounce back from the GFC than larger businesses. However, the aggregate and sectoral economic data do not suggest that the economic conditions for small business have recently diverged materially from those of businesses generally within the industries in which they operate. Business conditions for small businesses are harder than for large businesses, but this has been true for almost a decade and has not deteriorated recently. The survey results included in the submissions of the Australian Government do not suggest recent circumstances impacting disproportionately on small businesses.

[48] Overall the major indicators in respect of the award-reliant industries performed generally better than the all industries average over the most recent year. Whilst there is diversity in outcomes between the award-reliant industries, the data does not suggest that the most award-reliant industries have faced a relatively difficult economic environment over the past year or that recent minimum wage increases have adversely impacted on the relative economic performance of the award-reliant industries.

[49] The outlook for the Australian economy remains generally positive. All of the official forecasts expect GDP and employment to continue to grow and unemployment to fall. Inflation and wage growth is expected to continue to be below average levels in the coming year or so.

[50] The Australian economy is entering its 26th consecutive year of economic growth and a continuing transition toward broader growth in the Australian economy following the passing of the resource investment boom. The transition to broader-based growth is being supported in the short-term by household consumption, dwelling investment and exports, with non-mining investment remaining weak and falling mining investment detracting from growth.

[51] The decline in the terms of trade since late 2011 has reduced the income available for distribution to labour and capital, with employees experiencing relatively low increases in wages, on all measures, over the past two years. Each measure of wages reflects a continuing fall in aggregate wages growth over the past year, to historically low levels. This is contributing to the process of adjusting to the downturn in the terms of trade, as real net national disposable income (RNNDI) has increased by less than GDP from the second half of 2011, and fell in 2015. The shift in incomes between labour and capital associated with the rapid increase in the terms of trade and its more recent decline was most evident in the mining sector.

[52] The relatively low growth in aggregate wages is a relevant consideration for the Panel because of its bearing on relative living standards and the needs of the low paid. In the past, the Panel has not increased the NMW and modern award minimum wage rates on the basis of the stronger RNNDI movements because such movements are based on short term and volatile factors. 31 We do not propose to alter the NMW and award rates directly on the basis of the subsequent weak RNNDI movements in order to be consistent in our approach. The force of the weak growth in RNNDI on our decision is felt through its consequences for growth in wages more generally.

Social considerations

[53] Both the minimum wages objective and the modern awards objective require us to take into account relative living standards and the needs of the low paid when setting minimum wage rates. Those matters must be considered, within the range of statutory matters in ss.134(1) and 284(1) of the Act, in the context of the evidence relevant to a particular review. They are different, but related, concepts. 32

[54] The assessment of relative living standards requires a comparison of the living standards of workers reliant on the NMW and modern award minimum wage rates with those of other groups that are deemed to be relevant. Relative living standards focus on the comparison between award-reliant workers and other employees, especially non-managerial employees, but does not exclude comparison with other groups.33 For the reasons set out in paragraphs [354] and [357], we do not favour a comparison with pensioners or small business owners for the purpose of assessing the relative living standards of the low paid.

[55] The assessment of the needs of the low paid requires an examination of the extent to which low-paid workers are able to purchase the essentials for a “decent standard of living” and to engage in community life, assessed in the context of contemporary norms.

[56] We accept that adult award-reliant employees who receive a rate of pay that (as a full-time equivalent) is below two-thirds of median (adult) ordinary time earnings provide an appropriate and practical benchmark for identifying who is low paid. Whilst no specific conclusion is available, the information as a whole, suggests that a sizeable proportion—probably a majority—of employees who are award reliant are also low paid by reference to the two-thirds of median weekly earnings benchmark.

[57] The NMW has increased in real terms in most years within the decade. The real value of the NMW increased by a cumulative 4.8 per cent over the past decade to the December quarter 2015, with a 3 per cent real growth over the five years to the December quarter 2015 and a 0.8 per cent real increase over the most recent year to the December quarter 2015. Since the Annual Wage Review 2010–11 (2010–11 Review) decision, the NMW and all modern award rates have increased in real terms and at the same percentage at each classification level.

[58] The C14 (introductory) rate fell relative to measures of median and average earnings over the past decade, with much of that decline occurring between August 2005 and August 2008. The ratio of the C14 rate to median earnings has fallen marginally since the AWR adjustment in 2010—from 54.3 per cent in August 2010 to 53.4 per cent in August 2014, although it has risen from the historically low level of 52.7 per cent in August 2012.

[59] Award rates have grown more slowly over the decade than all other measures of average pay—AWOTE, average weekly earnings (AWE) and the WPI—although growth in the C14 rate has remained close to that of the WPI. Divergence between award rates and average wages has narrowed more recently, reflecting reduced growth in the AWOTE, AWE and the WPI and recent decisions of the Panel.

[60] Real weekly earnings of full-time workers have become progressively less equal in the past decade—for each decile, the lower the earnings, the lower the rate of growth in earnings, reflected in the fanning out of the earnings distribution. However, earnings inequality has stabilised since 2008.

[61] The distribution of low-paid workers across employee households, preferably households for which the principal source of income is wages, provides the best basis for assessing the relative living standards and the needs of the low paid, for the reasons found at paragraphs [400] to [402].

[62] Overall income inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, has risen since
1994–95, but appears to have stabilised from at least 2007–08 at relatively high levels compared with the past.

[63] We do not accept the proposition that most low-paid workers are not in low-income households. Many low-paid workers live in households with low or very low disposable incomes. Around two-thirds of low-paid employees are found within the bottom half of the distribution of employee households and have lower living standards than other employees. Single low wage earners are particularly concentrated in the lower deciles of employee household income distribution. Single low wage earners without children receive little help from the transfer system.

[64] Increases in the minimum wage and award classification wages do have a role to play as part of a package of measures to address inequality. Increases in the minimum wage and award classification wages have directly impacted on the relative living standards of the low paid and their capacity to meet relevant needs.

[65] In December 2015, disposable income was less than the 60 per cent of median income poverty lines for single-earner couples, where one partner earns the NMW or C10 rate and the other partner is not in the labour force and therefore not in receipt of Newstart Allowance (NSA), whether or not they have children.

[66] New information from financial stress measures, for 2014, is available from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey and General Social Survey (GSS) survey. The 2014 data suggest that a slightly higher proportion of low-paid persons or households reported financial stress in 2014. In 2014, 13.4 per cent of low-paid employee households reported that they were “unable to raise $3000 in a week for something important”: the highest level reported during the past five years.

[67] Our overall assessment is that the relative living standards of NMW and award-reliant employees have improved a little over recent years, although the relative position of low-paid workers has deteriorated over the past decade. Many have low levels of disposable income. Some low paid award-reliant employee households have levels of disposable income which places them below the poverty line. The current environment of low inflation and low wages growth generally provides an opportunity to provide a moderate improvement in the relative living standards of the low paid and to better meet their needs. The requirement to take into account relative living standards and the needs of the low paid supports an increase in the NMW and modern award minimum wages.

[68] The Act requires the Panel to take into account “promoting social inclusion through increased workforce participation” (s.284(1)(b)). Consistent with past AWR decisions, we interpret this to mean increased employment. Higher minimum wages can provide incentives to those not in the labour market to seek paid work, which needs to be balanced against potential negative impacts on the supply of jobs for low-paid workers.

[69] For the purposes of making a determination, we must form a view on the employment impacts of an increase in the NMW and modern award minimum wages. This issue is likely to remain contested, especially for Australia where the application of conclusions from United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) research is not straightforward. The additional evidence presented to this Review, especially that from the work of the PC, is consistent with our conclusion that an increase in the NMW and award wages of the size that we have determined and in the economic circumstances that we face, will not have a measurable impact on employment.

[70] The impact of the NMW and award wages on promoting social inclusion through increased workforce participation is difficult to discern with any confidence. Jobs must be attractive enough for people with alternative sources of income to be willing to seek them. The evidence is that for most, but not all, family types, there is a substantial financial gain from moving from not employed to a minimum wage job. This financial gain is sensitive to the gap between the level of income support and the level of the NMW and the lower award rates. We must be alert to the possibility that over time the incentives that are provided by this gap may diminish unduly.

[71] Evidence on the duration of employment in low-paid work points to its role as an entry point into the labour market and a stepping stone for many into better paid work. But a substantial number of low-paid workers either remain in low-paid work for a number of years, or move between low-paid work and no work. We cannot be indifferent to the standard of living of low-paid workers just because many do not stay in that situation for long periods. Those employees who are reliant on the NMW and award wages are a relevant concern to the Panel in exercising its statutory obligations.

[72] The possibility that there are greater long-run and cumulative effects on job openings for low-skill workers is a constraint on raising minimum wages to a level that would more fully satisfy the requirement to take into account the relative living standards and needs of the low paid. The modest growth in the NMW and award wages over the past decade gives little basis for a view that these wage adjustments have in fact diminished entry-level and low-skill jobs.

[73] There is general agreement in the submissions that the labour market has strengthened over the past year. The particular indicators of this are presented in Chapter 4 of this decision. This is relevant to the potential impact of changes to the NMW and award wages on the demand for labour, since it is widely agreed, and we accept, that the sensitivity of employer demand for labour, in response to wage rises, will be greater if the overall demand for labour is weak.

[74] In giving effect to both the modern awards objective and the minimum wages objective the Panel must take into account the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value (s.134(1)(e) and s.284(1)(d)). From the data before us, we can conclude:

• there is a substantial and persistent gap in the average hourly and weekly pay of men and women, in favour of men;

• women are significantly more likely to be paid at the award rate than are men at all levels of the award structure;

• workers paid at the award rate are much more likely to be low paid than are other workers; and

• at least at the highest rates in the award structure, women are heavily over-represented among those who are paid at the award rate.

[75] An increase in award rates of pay relative to other wages would reduce the gender pay gap in two ways. The first is that it would raise the level of low pay rates relative to median pay rates, and hence particularly benefit women, who disproportionately receive low pay rates. The second is that an increase in the higher levels of award rates will particularly benefit women, because at the higher pay scales, women are substantially more likely to be paid the award rather than the bargained rate than are men.

[76] The principle of equal remuneration is a factor in favour of an increase in the NMW and the minimum wages in modern awards and as such has been considered together with the various other statutory considerations the Panel is required to take into account.

Collective Bargaining

[77] The modern awards objective applies to the setting, varying or revoking of modern award minimum wages in an AWR. One of the matters the Panel is required to take into account in giving effect to the modern awards objective is “the need to encourage collective bargaining” (s.134(1)(b)). In making the NMW order, the Panel must give effect to the minimum wages objective. The minimum wages objective makes no reference to “the need to encourage collective bargaining”. However, as we note in Chapter 2, one of the purposes of the Act is to encourage collective bargaining and, hence, it is appropriate to take that legislative purpose into account in making the NMW order.

[78] The Survey of Employee Earnings and Hours (EEH) provides data on the method of setting pay. This survey is conducted every two years and the 2014 data is the most recent release. For the reasons given in Chapter 7 (at [523] - [524]), the recent increase in award reliance does not support the contention that recent minimum wage increases have acted as a disincentive to collective bargaining. In particular, we note that while most of the award-reliant industries experienced increases in award reliance, it increased only slightly in Other services (0.5 percentage points). The Accommodation and food services industry, which has the highest proportion of “award only” employees 34 of all industries (42.8 per cent in 2014), had a 2 percentage point fall in award reliance between 2012 and 2014. This tells against the proposition that the form or size of recent minimum wage increases have increased award reliance.

[79] As the Panel observed in the 2013–14 Review decision, 35 the available research does not reveal any particular relationship between the incentive to bargain and increases in the NMW and modern award minimum wages. Instead it points to a complex mix of factors that may contribute to employee and employer decision making about whether or not to bargain.

[80] The Panel’s previous conclusions as to the relationship between increases in minimum wages and collective bargaining remain valid, in particular:

• whilst the gap between minimum wages and bargained wages is likely to increase the incentive for employees to bargain, a large gap may be a disincentive for employers to bargain; and

• minimum wages are only one element of the incentive to bargain.

[81] In determining the increase in the NMW and modern award minimum wages in this Review we have taken into account the need to encourage collective bargaining. Given the complexity of the factors which may contribute to decision making about whether or not to bargain we are unable to predict the precise impact of our decision on collective bargaining, with any confidence.

The Decision

[82] The Panel received submissions from the Australian Government, several state governments, bodies representing the interests of employees, employers and other groups, and individuals. Many of the submissions did not advance a specific proposal as to the quantum of any increase to the NMW or modern award minimum wages, including all government submissions. Three submissions proposed that there be no increase in minimum wages. The parties’ positions are set out in more detail in Chapter 3.

[83] The Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland (CCIQ), Chamber of Commerce and Industry Western Australia (CCIWA) and National Retail Association (NRA) proposed flat dollar increases of varying amounts. CCIQ and CCIWA supported an increase of not more than $7.90 per week to the NMW and modern award minimum wages. NRA supported an increase of not more than $10.70 per week.

[84] A number of business and industry associations proposed percentage increases of differing amounts.

[85] Master Grocers of Australia (MGA) and the NFF proposed an increase of no more than 1.1 per cent to the NMW and modern award minimum wages. An increase of 1.1 per cent amounts to a $7.20 increase to the NMW/C14 rate and $8.40 to the C10 rate.

[86] ACCI submitted that the Panel should adopt a “cautious approach” and award an increase of no greater than 1.2 per cent. Australian Federation of Employers and Industries (AFEI), Australian Retailers Association (ARA), Business SA and the various Motor Traders Associations (MTAs) supported ACCI’s submission. An increase of 1.2 per cent amounts to a $7.90 increase to the NMW/C14 rate and $9.20 to the C10 rate.

[87] Ai Group proposed a 1.6 per cent increase to both the NMW and modern award minimum wages, which represents a $10.50 per week increase to the NMW. Australian Business Industrial and the NSW Business Chamber Ltd (ABI) submitted that any increase should not exceed 2 per cent.

[88] The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and Australian Catholic Council for Employment Relations (ACCER) supported a tiered approach to any increase to the NMW and modern award minimum wages. The ACTU proposed a flat dollar increase of $30.00 per week to the NMW and modern award minimum wages up to, and including, the C10 rate and an increase of 3.9 per cent to all modern award minimum wages above the C10 rate. A flat dollar increase of $30.00 per week to the NMW/C14 level is equivalent to an increase of about 4.6 per cent and about 3.9 per cent at the C10 rate.

[89] ACCER proposed tiered, flat dollar increases, with the NMW increasing by $25.10 per week and modern award minimum wages by $19.00 per week. As initially put ACCER’s proposal, if implemented, would have resulted in the NMW exceeding modern award minimum wages at the C14 level. During the course of the final consultations on 10 May 2016, ACCER clarified its position and submitted that the NMW and modern award minimum wages at the C14 level should both be increased by $25.10.

[90] We have taken into account all of the relevant statutory considerations. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the underlying intention of the various economic considerations in ss.3, 134 and 284 is that the Panel is required to take into account the effect of its decisions on national economic prosperity and in doing so give particular emphasis to the economic indicators mentioned in the relevant statutory provisions.

[91] The key changes in the economic environment evident in this Review are:

• The economy has grown at close to trend, improving over the second half of 2015. Real GDP grew by 3.0 per cent over the year to the December quarter 2015, compared to 2.2 per cent over the year to the December quarter 2014. RNNDI fell by 1.1 per cent over the year to December 2015, after remaining essentially unchanged in the previous year.

• Stronger labour market conditions over the past year are evident across all measures apart from the fall in hours worked in early 2016. The unemployment rate fell from 6.1 per cent in April 2015 to 5.7 per cent in April 2016. As overall unemployment fell over the course of 2015 and into 2016, so too did the under-employment rate, long-term unemployment and the youth unemployment rate.

• All measures of inflation and wages growth are at historically low levels.

• Over the five years to 2014–15 labour productivity growth in the market sector was higher than the previous five year period.

• Company gross operating profits grew by 2.8 per cent for non-mining industries over the year to the December quarter 2015, above the average for the past five years and greater than the 1.4 per cent growth over the year to the December quarter 2014. Mining industry profits continued to fall.

[92] Economic data does not suggest that the most award-reliant industries have faced a relatively difficult economic environment over the past year or that recent minimum wage increases have adversely impacted on the relative economic performance of the award-reliant industries.

[93] The Panel has taken into account the circumstances of different regions, industries and sectors as part of its broader consideration of the national economy. These circumstances include that there are economic challenges currently facing certain regions and sectors as a result of the transition taking place in the economy and other factors including natural disasters.

[94] Currently, wages growth is neither a source of inflationary pressure within the economy, nor a source of declining capacity for Australian firms to compete in international markets. The outlook for the Australian economy remains generally positive. Inflation and wage growth is expected to continue to be below average levels in the coming year or so.

[95] Of course these economic considerations are not the only matters which the Act requires us to take into account. We are also required to take into account a range of social and other considerations. In particular, we are required to take into account the “promotion of social inclusion through increased workforce participation”; “relative living standards and the needs of the low paid”, “the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value”, and the “need to encourage collective bargaining”. No particular primacy is attached to the various economic, social and other considerations the Panel is required to take into account.

[96] The impact of the NMW and award wages on promoting social inclusion through increased workforce participation is difficult to discern with any confidence.

[97] The additional evidence presented to this Review, especially that from the work of the PC, is consistent with our conclusion that the employment impacts of an increase in the NMW and award wages of the size that we have determined and in the economic circumstances that we face, will not have a measurable impact on employment.

[98] Despite some recent improvement in the relative living standards of NMW and award-reliant employees, the relative position of low-paid workers has deteriorated over the past decade. Many low-paid workers live in households with low or very low disposable incomes. Around two-thirds of low-paid employees are found within the bottom half of the distribution of employee households and have lower living standards than other employees. Some low-paid award-reliant employee households have household incomes which put them below the 60 per cent of median income poverty lines.

[99] Women continue to be over-represented among the award reliant and low paid. Increases in the NMW and modern award wages can provide some assistance in addressing the gender pay gap.

[100] On the available evidence and the experience to date it is likely that the increase we have determined in this Review will impact upon the incentives to bargain in various sectors in different ways, but will not, in aggregate, discourage collective bargaining.

[101] The general economic climate is robust, with some continued improvement in productivity and historically low levels of inflation and wages growth. The prevailing economic circumstances provide an opportunity to improve the relative living standards of the low paid and to enable them to better meet their needs. The level of increase we have decided upon will not lead to inflationary pressure and is highly unlikely to have any measurable negative impact on employment. It will, however, mean a modest improvement in the real wages for those employees who are reliant on the NMW and modern award minimum wages.

[102] We have determined that it is appropriate to increase the NMW. The factors identified above have led us to award an increase of 2.4 per cent. The national minimum wage will be $672.70 per week or $17.70 per hour. The hourly rate has been calculated by dividing the weekly rate by 38, on the basis of the 38-hour week for a full-time employee. This constitutes an increase of $15.80 per week to the weekly rate or 41 cents per hour to the hourly rate.

[103] Having regard to the proposed NMW and the other relevant considerations, we also consider that it is appropriate to adjust modern award minimum wages.

[104] As to the form of the increase, past flat dollar increases in award minimum rates have compressed award relativities and reduced the gains from skill acquisition. The position of the higher award classifications has reduced relative to market rates and to average earnings and has fallen in terms of real purchasing power. A uniform percentage increase will particularly benefit women workers, because at the higher award classification levels women are substantially more likely than men to be paid the minimum award rate rather a bargained rate. These matters have led us to determine a uniform percentage increase. The considerations to which we have referred have led us to increase modern award minimum wages by 2.4 per cent.

[105] The determinations and order giving effect to our decision will come into operation on 1 July 2016. Weekly wages will be rounded to the nearest 10 cents.

[106] In Chapter 2 we deal with submissions directed at an award-by-award review of minimum wages and the deferral of any minimum wage increase for those industry sectors and regions affected by the impacts of natural disasters over the past year. For the reasons given in Chapter 2 we do not propose to grant the relief sought.

[107] As foreshadowed in Chapter 9, although it will be a matter for the Panel constituted to conduct next year’s Review, we propose that a review be undertaken of the transitional instruments that must be dealt with as part of AWRs, as well as a review of the existing arrangements for employees with disability, which we would propose be the subject of a preliminary hearing as part of the Annual Wage Review 2016–17 (2016–17 Review).

[108] It is also convenient to deal here with the submission by United Voice that the Panel take the procedural step of deciding to conduct a preliminary hearing into whether the Panel should adopt a medium-term target for the NMW. United Voice submits that:

“… a separate process should be conducted both to assist procedural convenience to the Panel and those making submissions and to ensure that the merits of the matter are considered aside from the specifics of an annual review. Our proposal involves a significant consideration of the role of the Panel in determining the AWR and is likely to attract views from a range of parties.” 37

[109] The preliminary hearing proposed by United Voice is intended to form part of the 2016–17 Review. During the course of the public consultation on 10 May 2016, United Voice acknowledged that its proposal was really a question for the Panel constituted to deal with the 2016–17 Review, rather than the Panel as presently constituted. We agree.

2. The Statutory Framework

General

[110] As we have mentioned, the Panel is required to conduct and complete a Review in each financial year. In conducting a Review the Panel must review the NMW and modern award minimum wages and make a NMW order. 38 The Panel’s task is set out in s.285(2) of the Act:

“In an annual wage review, the FWC:

(a) must review:

(i) modern award minimum wages; and

(ii) the national minimum wage order; and

(b) may make one or more determinations varying modern awards to set, vary or revoke modern award minimum wages; and

[111] The Act requires the Panel to take into account a number of considerations in performing these functions.

[112] The minimum wages objective applies to the exercise of functions and powers under Part 2—6 of the Act, which includes the Review. 39 The minimum wages objective is set out in s.284 of the Act:

“284 The minimum wages objective

What is the minimum wages objective?

(1) The FWC must establish and maintain a safety net of fair minimum wages, taking into account:

(a) the performance and competitiveness of the national economy, including productivity, business competitiveness and viability, inflation and employment growth; and

(b) promoting social inclusion through increased workforce participation; and

(d) the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value; and

(e) providing a comprehensive range of fair minimum wages to junior employees, employees to whom training arrangements apply and employees with a disability.

This is the minimum wages objective.”

[113] The modern awards objective applies to the performance or exercise of “modern award powers”, which are defined to include the variation of modern award minimum wages. The modern awards objective is set out in s.134 of the Act:

“134 The modern awards objective

What is the modern awards objective?

(1) The FWC must ensure that modern awards, together with the National Employment Standards, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions, taking into account:

(a) relative living standards and the needs of the low paid; and

(b) the need to encourage collective bargaining; and

(d) the need to promote flexible modern work practices and the efficient and productive performance of work; and

(da) the need to provide additional remuneration for:

(i) employees working overtime; or

(ii) employees working unsocial, irregular or unpredictable hours; or

(iii) employees working on weekends or public holidays; or

(iv) employees working shifts; and

(e) the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value; and

(f) the likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on business, including on productivity, employment costs and the regulatory burden; and

(g) the need to ensure a simple, easy to understand, stable and sustainable modern award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern awards; and

(h) the likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on employment growth, inflation and the sustainability, performance and competitiveness of the national economy.

This is the modern awards objective.”

[114] The modern awards objective is that modern awards, together with the National Employment Standards (NES), provide a “fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions”, taking into account the particular considerations identified in s.134(1)(a)–(h). The modern awards objective is very broadly expressed and no particular primacy is attached to any of the considerations identified in s.134(1)(a)–(h). 40

[115] The above observation can also be applied to the minimum wages objective in s.284 and the considerations in s.284(1)(a)–(e).

[116] There is a substantial degree of overlap in the considerations the Panel is required to take into account under the minimum wages objective and under the modern awards objective, though some of these considerations are not expressed in the same terms. 41

[117] In particular, there are differences in the expression of the economic considerations that the Panel is required to take into account under the modern awards objective and the minimum wages objective. 42 However, the underlying intention of the various economic considerations referred to in ss.134 and 284 is that the Panel takes into account the effect of its decisions on national economic prosperity and in so doing gives particular emphasis to the economic indicators specifically mentioned in the relevant statutory provisions.43

[118] Section 578(a) is also relevant. It provides that the Panel must take into account the object of the Act in performing its functions or exercising its powers in an AWR. 44 The object of the Act is set out in s.3, as follows:

“3 Object of this Act

The object of this Act is to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations that promotes national economic prosperity and social inclusion for all Australians by:

(a) providing workplace relations laws that are fair to working Australians, are flexible for businesses, promote productivity and economic growth for Australia’s future economic prosperity and take into account Australia’s international labour obligations; and

(b) ensuring a guaranteed safety net of fair, relevant and enforceable minimum terms and conditions through the National Employment Standards, modern awards and national minimum wage orders; and

(c) ensuring that the guaranteed safety net of fair, relevant and enforceable minimum wages and conditions can no longer be undermined by the making of statutory individual employment agreements of any kind given that such agreements can never be part of a fair workplace relations system; and

(d) assisting employees to balance their work and family responsibilities by providing for flexible working arrangements; and

(e) enabling fairness and representation at work and the prevention of discrimination by recognising the right to freedom of association and the right to be represented, protecting against unfair treatment and discrimination, providing accessible and effective procedures to resolve grievances and disputes and providing effective compliance mechanisms; and

(f) achieving productivity and fairness through an emphasis on enterprise-level collective bargaining underpinned by simple good faith bargaining obligations and clear rules governing industrial action; and

(g) acknowledging the special circumstances of small and medium-sized businesses. [emphasis added]”

[119] As noted above, one of the considerations the Panel is required to take into account in giving effect to the minimum wages objective is “promoting social inclusion through increased workforce participation” [emphasis added] (s.284(1)(b)). In the present proceedings the Victorian Government submitted that the Panel should adopt “a broader understanding of the relationship between workforce participation and social inclusion”. 45 In support of this proposition the Victorian Government submitted that:

“… while employment is a key determinant, merely having a job is not always enough to facilitate social inclusion. A job with inadequate pay can create social exclusion if the level of income limits a person’s capacity to engage in the cultural, economic, political and social aspects of life.” 46

[120] The Panel considered this issue in the 2012–13 Review decision and concluded that the consideration of social inclusion in the context of s.284(1)(b) is limited to increased workforce participation, that is, obtaining employment. 47 The Panel noted that:

“This involves a consideration of the increased incentives that higher minimum wages can provide to those not in employment to seek paid work, balanced against potential impacts on the demand for low-paid workers and hence the supply of low-paid jobs, from large increases in minimum wages”. 48

[121] The Panel based its conclusion on the use of the conjunctive “through” in s.284(1)(b). We think the Panel in the 2012–13 Review was correct in its construction of s.284(1)(b). But, importantly, the 2012–13 Review decision also observed that in a review the Panel’s consideration of social inclusion is not limited to s.284(1)(b):

“However, we also accept that modern award rates of pay impact upon an employee’s capacity to engage in community life and the extent of their social participation. These are matters that can be appropriately taken into account in our consideration of the legislative requirement to ‘maintain a safety net of fair minimum wages’ and to take into account ‘the needs of the low paid’ (s.284(1)(c)). Further, the broader notion of promoting social inclusion is also relevant to the fixation of minimum wages, quite apart from the more limited construct reflected in s.284(1)(b). One of the objects of the Act is to promote ‘social inclusion for all Australians by’ (among other things) ‘ensuring a guaranteed safety net of fair, relevant and enforceable minimum terms and conditions through…modern awards and national minimum wage orders’ (s.3(b)).” 49

[122] We endorse the above observation and on that basis we accept the thrust of the Victorian Government’s submission in the quote set out at [119] above, and this forms part of our broader consideration.

National minimum wage order

[123] The NMW order applies to award/agreement free employees. 50 The NMW order is dealt with in Division 4 of Part 2–6 of the Act (ss.293–299). It sets the NMW51 and special national minimum wages which apply to employees who are juniors; to whom training arrangements apply; or who have a disability.52

[124] An award/agreement free employee cannot be paid less than the rate of pay specified in the NMW order. Further, if an enterprise agreement applies to an employee and the employee is not covered by a modern award then the employee’s base rate of pay under the enterprise agreement must not be less than the rate specified in the NMW order (s.206(3)).

[125] The minimum wages objective and the object of the Act apply to the review and making of a NMW order. 53 But the modern awards objective is not relevant to the review and making of a NMW order.54

[126] Unlike the modern awards objective, the minimum wages objective makes no express reference to “the need to encourage collective bargaining” (s.134(1)(b)). However, as the Panel observed in the 2014–15 Review decision, 55 the fact that the minimum wages objective does not require the Panel to take this consideration into account does not make much difference, in practice, to the Panel’s task. This is so because the Panel is required to take into account the object of the Act and one of the stated means by which the object of the Act is given effect is “through an emphasis on enterprise level collective bargaining” (s.3(f)). While not expressed in the same terms as in the modern awards objective, it is plain from s.3(f) and a reading of the Act as a whole that one of the purposes of the Act is to encourage collective bargaining. It is appropriate that we take that legislative purpose into account in setting the NMW rate.

[127] The making of a NMW order and the review and variation of modern award minimum wages are separate but related functions. They are related because s.285(2) provides that in exercising its powers to set, vary or revoke modern award minimum wages, the Panel “must take into account the rate of the national minimum wage that it proposes to set in the Review.”

[128] It follows that as part of the decision making process in an AWR the Panel must first form a view about the rate of the NMW it proposes to set in that AWR (taking into account the statutory considerations relevant to that discrete task) and then take the proposed NMW rate into account (along with the other relevant statutory considerations) in exercising its powers to set, vary or revoke modern award minimum wage rates.

[129] This does not suggest some sort of bifurcated process whereby the Panel first makes a NMW order (which includes setting the NMW), before turning its mind to exercising its review powers to set, vary or revoke modern award minimum wage rates.

[130] As part of the AWR, the Panel considers both the setting of the NMW rate and whether to make any variation determinations in respect of modern award minimum wages. Each of these tasks is undertaken by reference to the particular statutory criteria applicable to each function.

Modern award minimum wages

[131] Modern award minimum wages are the rates of minimum wages in modern awards, including:

(a) wage rates for junior employees, employees to whom training arrangements apply and employees with a disability;
(b) casual loadings; and
(c) piece rates (s.284(3)).

[132] The review and variation of modern award minimum wages is a separate function to that of reviewing and making a NMW order, though, as we have mentioned, the two functions are related. There is no legislative requirement to set the NMW rate at the same level as the lowest modern award minimum wage rate. The setting of the NMW rate is a discretionary decision which takes into account the statutory considerations relevant to that discrete task.

[133] The modern awards objective and the minimum wages objective both apply to the exercise of functions and powers in setting, varying or revoking modern award minimum wages as part of an AWR.

[134] The Act does not compel the variation of modern award minimum wages in all modern awards. The Panel has a discretion to vary some or all modern award minimum wages in the context of a Review. However, in exercising that discretion considerations of fairness and stability tell against an award-by-award approach to minimum wage fixation. As the Panel observed in the 2012–13 Review decision:

“If differential treatment was afforded to particular industries this would distort award relativities and lead to disparate wage outcomes for award-reliant employees with similar or comparable levels of skill ... It is also relevant that in establishing and maintaining the minimum wages safety net, the Panel must take into account the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value. Such a principle supports the determination of consistent minimum rates for work of equal or comparable value. The maintenance of consistent minimum wages in modern awards and the need to ensure a stable and sustainable modern award system would be undermined if the Panel too readily acceded to requests for differential treatment.

… Enterprise level collective bargaining is the primary means by which the statutory framework envisages differential treatment based on the circumstances in particular enterprises, which would be influenced by relevant sectoral considerations.” 56

[135] In the present proceedings, the ARA submitted that the Panel “should consider any increase on an award-by-award basis and provide an interim decision or statement prior to handing down a final decision.” 57

[136] The Panel has previously considered submissions to the effect that it should conduct a modern award-by-modern award review of minimum wages and that this should result in a different, lower, increase or no increase at all in specific industries or modern awards. These matters were fully canvassed in the 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14 and 2014–15 Review proceedings.

[137] The ARA did not advance a merit argument in favour of an alternative construction of the relevant provisions of the Act. The Panel is not persuaded to depart from the conclusions reached in past review decisions in respect of this issue.

[138] The Panel has also previously dealt with the proposition that it should hand down an interim decision or statement prior to handing down a final decision. We infer from the ARA’s submission in the present proceedings that such an interim decision process is intended to allow individual employers or their representatives to then seek differential treatment on an award, sectoral or some other basis.

[139] The Panel has repeatedly noted the practical difficulties associated with such an approach having regard to the requirements in the Act regarding the time for completion of each AWR, commencement of the minimum wage determinations and the national minimum wage order and publication of any variation to modern award minimum wages. 58 The ARA has made no attempt to address any of these difficulties in its submission.

[140] The Panel is not persuaded to depart from the conclusion reached in the 2013–14 Review decision that an interim decision mechanism is neither necessary nor practical. 59

[141] We now turn to consider the submissions relating to the circumstances pertaining in particular states.

[142] The Western Australian Government submitted that, while the Commission is required to consider the economic circumstances of the nation as a whole, it is appropriate that due consideration is given to the particular conditions in Western Australia, which is currently experiencing weaker conditions in its domestic economy, resulting in a softer labour market and an increased rate of unemployment. 60 Business SA pointed to the economic challenges currently facing South Australia and submitted that because Australia’s economy is undergoing transition, any minimum wage decision will impact some industries and regions more than others.61

[143] The Panel takes into account the circumstances of different regions, industries and sectors as part of its broader consideration of the national economy. In addition, the Panel has scope to consider whether exceptional circumstances should result in delaying or deferring the operation of a variation to a modern award or adjustment of the NMW and has outlined the process for such considerations in previous Reviews. 62

[144] CCIQ again submitted that the Panel should defer the impact of any minimum wage increase for Queensland industry sectors and regions affected by the impacts of natural disasters, such as droughts and cyclones, over the past year. In the 2014–15 Review decision, the Panel rejected a CCIQ submission in the same terms and set out, in detail, the criteria for establishing exceptional circumstances such as to warrant an exemption or deferral from a NMW order and/or modern award wages increase. 63

141 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 29.

142 ACCI submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 19, paras 74 –75.

143 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 29.

144 [2014] FWCFB 3500 at para. 169.

145 ABS, Private New Capital Expenditure and Expected Expenditure, Australia, Dec 2015, Catalogue No. 5625.0.

146 Other selected industries includes Electricity, gas, water and waste services; Construction; Wholesale trade; Retail trade; Transport, postal and warehousing; Information media and telecommunications; Finance and insurance (excluding Superannuation funds); Rental, hiring and real estate services; Professional, scientific and technical services; Accommodation and food services; Administrative and support services; Arts and recreation services; and Other services.

147 ABS, Private New Capital Expenditure and Expected Expenditure, Australia, Dec 2015, Catalogue No. 5625.0.

148 ABS, Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product, Dec 2015 Catalogue No. 5206.0.

149 Davis K, McCarthy M and Bridges J (2016), The Labour Market during and after the terms of trade Boom, RBA Bulletin, March Quarter, pp. 1–10.

150 Ibid at p.8.

151 [2013] FWCFB 4000 at paras 147–160.

152 Australian Government submission at p. 18, para. 96; ABS, Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product, Dec 2015, Catalogue No. 5206.0.

153 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 18, para. 96.

154 ABS, Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product, Dec 2015, Catalogue No. 5206.0

155 Ibid.

156 ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 44, para. 132, Figure 19.

157 Ibid, at pp. 44–45, para. 132, Figure 20.

158 Mavromaras K, Sloane P and Zhu R (National Institute of Labour Studies) (2016), An international comparison of minimum wages and labour market outcomes, Research report 1/2016, Fair Work Commission, February.

159 Ibid at p. 24.

160 ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 43, para. 128, Figure 18.

161 ABS, Australian System of National Accounts, 2014–15, Catalogue No. 5204.0.

162 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 47, para. 212.

163 [2014] FWCFB 3500 at para. 171.

164 Resolution Foundation (2014), More than a minimum: the Resolution Foundation review of the future of the National Minimum Wage—the final report, p. 25, < Croucher R and Rizov M (2011), The impact of the UK national minimum wage on productivity by low-paying sectors and firm-size groups, report to the Low Pay Commission, London, March 2011; Riley R and Rosazza Bondibene C (2013) The Impact of the National Minimum Wage on Firm Behaviour During Recession, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

166 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 192.

167 Riley R and Rosazza Bondibene C (2013), The impact of the national minimum wage on firm behaviour during a recession, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, report to the Low Pay Commission, at pp. 22–23.

168 ABS, Business Indicators, Australia, Dec 2015, Catalogue No. 5676.0.

169 Statistical Report at p. 7, Chart 3.3.

170 ABS, Counts of Australian Businesses, Including Entries and Exits, June 2011 to June 2015, Catalogue No. 8165.0.

171 ABS, Counts of Australian Businesses, Including Entries and Exits, June 2011 to June 2015, Catalogue No. 8165.0.

172 RBA, Statement on Monetary Policy, May 2016, p. 55.

173 ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 57, Figure 28.

174 Ibid at p. 57, para. 161; RBA, Statement on Monetary Policy, February 2016, p. 57.

175 RBA, Statement on Monetary Policy, May 2016, p. 58.

176 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 209.

177 RBA, Statement on Monetary Policy, May 2016, p. 52.

178 ABS, Labour Force, Australia, Oct 2014, Catalogue No. 6202.0: Removing the Effect of Supplementary Surveys From Seasonally Adjusted Estimates.

179 Australian Government submission at p. 21, Chart 4.8.

180 ABS, Labour Force, Australia, Apr 2016, Catalogue No. 6202.0.

181 Australian Government, Budget Paper No. 1: Budget Strategy and Outlook 2016–17, Canberra, p. 2-26.

182 Statistical Report at p. 21, Table 6.9.

183 Ibid at p. 22, Table 6.10.

184 ABS, Labour Force, Australia—Electronic Delivery, Mar 2016, Catalogue No. 6291.0.55.001.

185 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 25, Chart 4.4.

186 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 231; ABS, Underemployed Workers, Australia, September 2013, Catalogue No. 6265.0.

187 ABS, Labour Force, Australia—Electronic Delivery, Mar 2016, Catalogue No. 6291.0.55.001.

188 ABS, Labour Force, Australia, Apr 2016, Catalogue No. 6202.0: Table 22.

189 Ai Group submission in reply, 15 April 2016 at p. 11.

190 ABS, Underemployed Workers, Australia, September 2013, Catalogue No. 6265.0, Table 5.

191 Breunig R, Gong X and Leslie G (2014), ‘The dynamics of satisfaction with working hours in Australia: the usefulness of panel data in evaluating the case for policy intervention’, Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 130–154.

192 Ibid at p. 140.

193 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 4, para. 27.

194 Breunig et al. (2014) at p. 143.

195 Borland J (2015), ‘The Australian labour market: the more things change…’, The Australian Economic Review, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 225–242.

196 Statistical Report at p. 23, Table 6.12.

197 ABS, Labour Force, Australia, Apr 2016, Catalogue No. 6202.0.

198 See [2015] FWCFB 3500 at paras 235–236.

199 ABS, Employee Earnings and Hours, Australia, May 2014, Catalogue No. 6306.0.

200 See [2013] FWCFB 4000 at paras 281–284.

201 R&CA submission, 27 March 2016 at p. 3; MGA submission, 29 March 2016 at pp. 4–5; MTAs submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 3; NFF submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 5, CCIWA submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 2, HIA submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 3; and CCIQ submission, 30 March 2016 at pp. 2, 6.

202 ABS, Counts of Australian Businesses, including Entries and Exits, June 2011 to June 2015, Catalogue No. 8165.0: Summary of Findings.

203 MGA submission, 29 March 2016 at p. 8.

204 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 35, Chart 5.2.

205 AFEI submission at p. 24. This information was published in Nicholls S and Orsmond D (2015), ‘The economic trends, challenges and behaviour of small businesses in Australia’, in Moore A and Simon J (eds), Small business conditions and finance, Reserve Bank of Australia, proceedings of a conference, 19–20 March, Sydney.

206 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 33, para. 165.

207 Ibid at p. 34, paras 167–168.

208 Australian Government response to questions for consultations, 6 May 2016 at p. 13.

209 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at pp. 37–44.

210 Australian Government response to questions for consultations, 6 May 2016 at p. 15.

211 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 40, Chart 5.6; p. 42, Chart 5.9.

212 Ibid at p. 43, Chart 5.10.

213 Ibid at p. 43, Chart 5.11.

214 Nicholls S and Orsmond D (2015), ‘The economic trends, challenges and behaviour of small businesses in Australia’, in Moore A and Simon J (eds), Small business conditions and finance, Reserve Bank of Australia, proceedings of a conference, 19–20 March, Sydney.

215 Ibid at pp. 15–17.

216 Ibid at pp. 23–25.

217 Ibid at p. 18.

218 ABS, Employee Earnings and Hours, Australia, May 2014, Catalogue No. 6306.0.

219 AHA & TAA submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 3; R&CA submission, 27 March 2016 at p. 6, paras 16–17; ARA submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 5; MGA submission, 29 March 2016 at pp. 13–16; HIA submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 5; South Australian Wine Industry Association Incorporated submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 6, p. 8; NFF submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 13, p. 16; MTAs submission, 30 March 2016 at pp. 3–4; and Business SA submission, 30 March 2016 at pp. 4–5.

220 R&CA submission, 27 March 2016 at p. 11, paras 33–34.

221 Ibid at pp. 11–15, paras 36–41.

222 [2014] FWCFB 1996.

223 HIA submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 4; MTAs submission, 30 March 2016 at pp. 7–8; and NFF submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 7.

224 [2013] FWCFB 5411.

225 See also [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 263.

226 South Australian Government submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 14, para. 56; Western Australian Government submission at, 30 March 2016 p. 2, para. 13.

227 Western Australian Government submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 1, para. 3.

228 Ibid at p. 1, para. 4.

229 Queensland Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 8.

230 Ibid at p. 8.

231 Ibid at p. 9.

232 Australian Government, Budget Paper No 1: Budget Strategy and Outlook Budget 2016–17, Canberra, pp. 2-3–2-4.

233 Ibid at p. 2-5.

234 Ibid at pp. 2-10–2-14.

235 Ibid at p. 1-7.

236 RBA, Statement on Monetary Policy, May 2016, p. 59.

237 Ibid at p. 62.

238 Ibid at p. 62.

239 Ai Group submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 9, Chart 5.

240 Ibid at pp. 10–12; Ai Group, CEO Survey: Business Prospects 2016.

241 Ai Group response to questions for consultations, 9 May 2016 at p. 13.

242 Ibid at pp. 14–15.

243 Ai Group submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 11, Chart 7.

244 Ibid at p. 11.

245 NAB Group Economics, NAB Monthly Business Survey, March 2016.

246 ABS, Job Vacancies, Australia, Feb 2016, Catalogue No. 6354.0.

247 ANZ Research, Job Advertisement Series, March 2016.

248 [2013] FWCFB 4000 at para. 361.

249 ACCER submission, 30 March 2016 at para. 45.

250 [2014] FWCFB 3500 at para. 85.

251 MGA submission, 29 March at p. 7.

252 [2013] FWCFB 4000 at para. 269.

253 [2013] FWCFB 4000 at para. 275.

254 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 8, para. 40.

255 See [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 319.

256 OECD, Minimum relative to average wages of full-time workers, < SACS Award.

258 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 9, para. 47.

259 Ibid at p. 9, para. 48.

260 ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 26, para. 85.

261 Wright S and Buchanan J (2013), Award reliance, Research Report 6/2013, Fair Work Commission, December, Melbourne.

262 Ibid at p. 67.

263 [2014] FWCFB 3500 at para. 321.

264 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 60, para. 261.

265 Ibid at p. 60, para. 262.

266 Ibid at p. 60, para. 263, Table 8.1.

267 Ibid at p. 60, para. 263.

268 Ibid at p. 61, para. 265, Table 8.2.

269 Ibid at p. 61, para. 266.

270 [2014] FWCFB 3500 at para. 59.

271 ACTU submission at p. 93, para. 254.

272 ABS, Average Weekly Earnings, Australia, Nov 2015, Catalogue No. 6302.0.

273 Australian Government submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 60, para. 262.

274 Ibid at p. 56, Chart 7.2.

275 ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 90, para. 243.

276 Ibid at p. 88, para. 241.

277 Victorian Government submission, 24 March 2016 at p. 8, para. 21, Figure 1.

278 Minimum Wage Act (Germany) 11 August 2014, BGBI, 2014, p. 1348. See also Amlinger M, Bispinck R and Schulten T, The German Minimum Wage: Experience and Perspectives After One Year, WSI Institute of Economic and Social Research, WSI – Report No 28e, 1/2016.

279 Chancellor George Osborne’s Summer Budget 2015 speech, < National Minimum Wage: Low Pay Commission remit 2016, 8 July 2015, < Low Pay Commission consultation letter 2016, 13 April 2016, < Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 64, para. 281; p. 65, Table 8.4.

281 ACCER submission, 30 March 2016 at pp. 9–10, paras 35–39.

282 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at paras 323–324.

283 Ibid at para. 143.

284 Ibid at paras 336–337.

285 [2014] FWCFB 3500 at para. 346.

286 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at pp. 10–11, para 54.

287 Ibid at p. 11, para. 55.

288 [2014] FWCFB 3500 at para. 85.

289 ABS, Household Income and Wealth, Australia, 2013–14, Catalogue No. 6523.0; Table 5.3.

290 Ibid: Explanatory Notes at paras 30–31.

291 PC Report at p. 217.

292 HILDA Survey, release 14 (December 2015), wave 14.

293 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at pp. 11–12, para. 57.

294 PC Report at p. 209.

295 Ibid at p. 208.

296 ACTU submission in reply, 15 April 2016 at p. 25, para. 69.

297 Ibid at p. 26, para. 70.

298 ACCI submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 5, para. 9; p. 28, para. 129.

299 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at pp. 2–3, para. 15; p. 14, paras 63–64.

300 Ibid at p. 5, para. 33.

301 Ibid at p. 14, para 64.

302 [2014] FWCFB 3500 at para. 396.

303 Ibid at para. 360.

304 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 338.

305 [2014] FWCFB 3500 at para. 344.

306 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 66, Table 8.6.

307 PC Report at p. 212.

308 ACTU, Submission to Annual Wage Review 2014–15, p. 44, Figure 25 and Figure 26. See also [2014] FWCFB 3500 at p. 244.

309 OECD (2015), ‘Recent labour market developments with a focus on minimum wages’, in OECD, OECD Employment Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris, pp. 19–62, at p. 49, citing various US and UK research papers and a study of wage inequality across 11 OECD countries in Koeniger W, Leonardi M and Nunziata L (2007), ‘Labour Market Institutions and Wage Inequality’, Industrial and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 60/3, pp. 340–356.

310 OECD (2015), ‘Recent labour market developments with a focus on minimum wages’, in OECD, OECD Employment Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris, pp. 19–62, at p. 49.

311 Dube A (2013), Minimum Wages and the Distribution of Family Incomes,unpublished Working Paper, December, Ibid at p. 30.

313 Ibid at p. 34.

314 Statistical Report at p. 31, Table 8.3.

315 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at pp. 62–63, para. 273, Table 8.3.

316 ACCER submission in reply, 15 April 2016 at p. 29, para. 35–36.

317 Ibid at p. 65, Table 8.5.

318 Ibid at p. 65, para. 282.

319 Ibid at p. 65, Table 8.5.

320 ACCER submission, 30 March 2016 at pp. 167–169, Tables 19 and 20.

321 Ibid at pp. 168–169, para. 538.

322 Ibid at p. 124, Table 10.

323 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 65, para. 283, Table 8.6.

324 Dabla-Norris E, Kochhar K, Suphaphiphat, N, Ricka F and Tsounta E (2015), Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective, IMF Staff Discussion Note, June OECD (2015), In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All, May, [2013] FWCFB 4000 at para 425.

326 ABS, Household Income and Wealth, Australia, 2013–14, Catalogue No. 6523.0.

327 ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 94.

328 Ibid at p. 95, Table 11.

329 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 61, para. 266–267, Chart 8.1.

330 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 387.

331 Ibid at para. 383.

332 Based on the Statistical Report at p. 30, Table 8.2..

333 Statistical Report at p. 30, Table 8.2.

334 ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at pp. 97–98, paras 276, 278; citing Cassells R, Dockery AM and Duncan A (2014), ‘Falling Through the Cracks: Poverty and Disadvantage in Australia’, Focus on the States Report Series, No. 1, October, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre, Curtin University, Perth, p. 6.

335 ACOSS submission, 7 April 2016 at pp. 6–7; ACOSS (2014), Poverty in Australia, ACOSS, Sydney.

336 Statistical Report at p. 33, Table 8.4.

337 Transcript of Proceedings, 10 May 2016, at para. 395.

338 ACOSS submission, 7 April 2016 at p. 18; ACCER submission, 30 March 2016 at pp. 185–187, paras 596–599.

339 ACCER submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 186, para. 599.

340 Fair Work Australia (2011), Measuring the Needs of the Low Paid, Report to the Minimum Wage Panel, 14 December, PR517718.

341 Ibid at para. 17.

342 ACOSS submission, 7 April 2016 at p. 9.

343 Statistical Report at pp. 35–36, Tables 10.1 and 10.2.

344 Statistical Report at p. 37, Table 10.3.

345 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 419.

346 Victorian Government submission, 24 March 2016 at p. 16 para. 51.

347 Ibid.

348 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 32, para. 160.

349 ACCI submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 20, para. 83.

350 Australian Government submission, 7 April 2016 at p. 57, para. 248; Victorian Government submission, 24 March 2016 at pp. 7–8, paras 18–21; ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at pp. 13–16, paras 41–54; Ai Group submission, 30 March 2016 at pp. 21–22; ACCI submission, 30 March 2016 at pp. 10–11, paras 27–28; ABI submission, 30 March 2016 at pp. 17–19; AFEI submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 17, para. 50.

351 Productivity Commission (2016), Computable General Equilibrium Modelling of Workplace Relations, Workplace Relations Framework—Technical Supplement, Canberra; Productivity Commission (2015), Exploring the effects of minimum wage increases on employment using a large administrative dataset, Workplace Relations Framework—Technical Supplement, Canberra.

352 PC Report at p. 177.

353 PC technical supplement (2015), Exploring the effects of minimum wage increases on employment using a large administrative dataset, p. 67.

354 Ibid at pp. 65–66.

355 ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 14, para. 47.

356 ACCI submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 13, para. 39.

357 Ibid at p. 12, paras 33–35.

358 Australian Government submission, 7 April 2016 at p. 60, para. 261.

359 The Rt Hon George Osborne MP, Summer Budget 2015 speech, Her Majesty’s Treasury (2015), Summer Budget 2015, OGL, July, p. 87.

361 ACCI submission in reply, 15 April 2016 at p. 6, para. 12.

362 Victorian Government submission, 24 March 2016 at p. 8, para. 19.

363 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at pp. 26–29, paras 128–144.

364 Research Report 1/2016, p. 37, Table 3.21.

365 Ibid at pp. 31–32; Tables 3.15 and 3.16.

366 Ibid.

367 Ibid at p. 36; Olssen A (2011), The Short-Run Effects of Age Based Youth Minimum Wages in Australia: a Regression Discontinuity Approach, paper presented at the New Zealand Association of Economists’ Conference, 29 June–1 July.

368 Statistical Report at p. 23, Table 6.12.

369 For example, Borland J (2015), ‘The Australian labour market: the more things change…’, The Australian Economic Review, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 225–242.

370 ACOSS, Submission to the Annual Wage Review 2012–13, at p. 41.

371 Transcript of Proceedings, 11 May 2016 at para. 571: Aaronson, French and Sorkin (2016), The long-run employment effects of the minimum wage: a putty-clay perspective, unpublished manuscript, p. 4.

372 Ibid at p. 5.

373 ACCI submission in reply, 15 April at p. 13, para 43.

374 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 437.

375 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 58, para. 253.

376 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 58, paras 255–257.

377 ACOSS submission, 7 April 2016 at p. 34.

378 Ibid at p. 33.

379 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 81, Appendix C.

380 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 442.

381 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 52, para. 231.

382 Ibid at p. 52, para. 233; Australian Government (Department of Employment), Further response to question on notice from the Expert Panel, 13 May 2016.

383 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 446, Table 6.2.

384 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 53, Tables 7.1 and 7.2.

385 Victorian Government submission, 24 March 2016 at p. 17, para. 55.

386 ACTU submission in reply, 15 April 2016 at pp. 22–23, para. 59.

387 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 453.

388 Broadway B and Wilkins R (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research) (2015) Low-paid women’s workforce participation decisions and pay equity, A report for the Pay Equity Unit of the Fair Work Commission, December, p. 14.

389 PC Report at p. 205, Box 4.6.

390 PC Report at p. 208; ACCI submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 31, para. 140.

391 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 457.

392 Ibid at para. 459.

393 Ibid at para. 473.

394 Ibid at para. 462.

395 Ibid at para. 463.

396 Employees classified as “award only” had their rate of pay specified by an award and were not paid more than that rate of pay.

397 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at paras 465–466.

398 Ibid at para. 467.

399 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 51, para. 222.

400 Ibid at p. 50, para. 220.

401 Ibid at p. 51, para. 229.

402 ACCI submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 35, para. 158.

403 Ibid at p. 36, para. 156.

404 Ai Group submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 28.

405 Ibid at p. 28; citing [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 472.

406 AFEI submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 23, paras 80–81.

407 Ibid at pp. 22–23, para. 81.

408 Western Australian Government submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 6, para. 25.

409 Ibid at p. 6, para. 24.

410 ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at pp. 28–29, para. 93.

411 Ibid at pp. 28–29, para. 93.

412 Ibid at p. 29, para. 94.

413 Ibid at p. 29, para. 96.

414 Ibid at pp. 28–29, para. 93.

415 Queensland Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 12.

416 Ibid at p. 12.

417 ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 29, para. 98.

418 South Australian Government submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 3, para. 4.

419 New South Wales Government submission, 7 April 2016 at p. 8, para. 39.

420 Ibid at p. 8, para. 40.

421 Ibid at p. 8, para. 42.

422 AFEI submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 23, para. 81.

423 [2014] FWCFB 3500 at para. 472.

424 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 472; [2010] FWAFB 4000 at para. 302; [2011] FWAFB 3400 at para. 281 and [2012] FWAFB 5000 at para. 222.

425 See Layton R, Smith M and Stewart A (2013), Equal Remuneration under the Fair Work Act 2009, A Report for the Pay Equity Unit of the Fair Work Commission, p. 103; Romeyn J, Archer S-K and Leung E (2011), Review of equal remuneration principles, Research Report 5/2011, Fair Work Australia, pp. 49, 60.

426 ABS, Gender Indicators, Australia, February 2016, Catalogue No. 4125.0.

427 Ibid: Economic Security.

428 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 63, para. 274.

429 South Australian Government submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 10, para. 34.

430 ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at pp. 108–109, para. 311.

431 Ibid, at p. 108, para. 310.

432 Victorian Government submission, 24 March 2016 at p. 14, para. 46; referring to Workplace Gender Equality Agency (2015), Australia’s gender equality scorecard; Key findings from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency’s 2014–15 reporting data, November at [2014] FWCFB 3500 at paras 476–484.

434 Ibid at para. 490; referring to Pointon M, Wheatley T, Ellis G and MacDermott K (2012), Award Reliance and Differences in Earnings by Gender,Research Report 3/2012, Fair Work Commission, February, p. 7.

435 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at paras 480–481.

436 Ibid at para. 481.

437 ILO (2012), Giving globalisation a human face: General survey on the Fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work in light of the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalisation, 2008, Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations International Labour Conference, 101st Session, International Labour Office, Geneva, pp. 279–280.

438 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 492.

439 [2010] FWAFB 4000 at para. 319; [2011] FWAFB 3400 at para. 296; [2012] FWAFB 5000 at para. 231; [2013] FWCFB 4000 at para. 484; and [2014] FWCFB 3500 at para. 489.

440 Rozenbes D and Farmakis-Gamboni S (2015), Earnings and characteristics of employees by gender and industrial arrangement, a report for the Pay Equity Unit of the Fair Work Commission, December; and Broadway B and Wilkins R (2015).

441 Rozenbes D and Farmakis-Gamboni S (2015), p. 19.

442 Ibid.

443 Broadway B and Wilkins R (2015), pp. 12–13.

444 Ibid at p. 12.

445 Ibid at p. vi.

446 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 64, para. 275; referring to Rozenbes D and Farmakis-Gamboni S (2015) and Broadway B and Wilkins R (2015).

447 Ai Group submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 29; Broadway B and Wilkins R (2015), pp. v–vi.

448 Victorian Government submission, 24 March 2016 at pp. 13–14, para. 44 referring to Austen S, Jefferson T, Preston A and Seymour R (2008), Gender pay differentials in low-paid employment, report commissioned by the Australian Fair Pay Commission, Research Report No. 3/09.

449 Victorian Government submission, 24 March 2016 at p. 14, para. 47.

450 ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 108, para. 308.

451 Australian Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 5, para. 34.

452 Ibid at p. 64, para. 278.

453 Ibid at p. 64, para. 276.

454 ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at p.109, para. 313.

455 ACTU submission in reply, 15 April 2016 at p. 21, para. 50.

456 ACOSS submission, 7 April 2016 at p. 7.

457 Queensland Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 12.

458 South Australian Government submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 10, para. 34.

459 Victorian Government submission, 24 March 2016 at pp. 4–5, para. 7; p. 13, paras. 42–43.

460 Ai Group submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 29.

461 [2014] FWCFB 3500 at para. 488.

462 Wright S and Buchanan J (2013), Award reliance, Research Report 6/2013, Fair Work Commission,December, Table 4.16.

463 Ibid at p. 106.

464 [2015] FWCFB 8200.

465 Ibid at para. 292.

466 ABI submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 24.

467 Some transitional APCSs may still operate. This includes (but is not limited to) instruments which cover employees also covered by enterprise awards for which an application to modernise has been made; employees also covered by State reference public sector awards for which an application to modernise has been made; or cover employees also covered by the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Industry Award 2010.

468 Some Division 2A State reference transitional awards may still operate such as where they are related to awards that have not been terminated under the termination of instruments process or if they cover Queensland apprentices/trainees.

469 Some Division 2B State reference transitional awards may still operate such as where they are related to awards that have not been terminated under the termination of instruments process or if they cover Queensland apprentices/trainees.

470 Some Division 2B State awards may still operate such as where they cover: employees also covered by enterprise instruments; employees also covered by State reference public sector awards; or a Queensland apprentice/trainee.

471 Two transitional pay equity orders currently operate, created under sch 3, item 43 and Sch 3A, item 30A of the Transitional Act respectively. The Panel must review and may make a determination varying the transitional pay equity order created under sch 3A, sub item 30D(1) to the extent that it is derived from the Queensland Community Services and Crisis Assistance Award – State 2008.

472 See discussion further for whom these instruments apply.

473 [2010] FWAFB 4000 at paras 370–396.

474 Dunn A and Bray G (2010), Minimum wage transitional instruments under the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009, Research Report 06/2010, Fair Work Australia, June.

475 [2013] FWCFB 4000 at paras 550–561.

476 Transitional Act, items 5(2) and 9(4) of Sch 6.

477 Ibid, items 5(3), 6 and 10(1) of Sch 6A.

478 For example, certain instruments that covered employees who were also covered by the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Industry Award 2010 were preserved by the [2010] FWAFB 9916 at para. 44. As at the date of this decision, they have not yet been terminated.

479 A more detailed outline of these instruments can be found at [2013] FWCFB 4000 at paras 553–559.

480 Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2009, items 10 and 20 of Sch. 9, item 12A(6) of Sch. 3 and item 30D of Sch. 3A.

481 The Fair Work (Transfer of Business) Amendment Act 2012, which commenced on 4 December 2012, introduced Part 6.3 into the Act. A copied State award continues to operate under the national system for a period of five years, unless terminated or extended by regulation. See s.768AO of the Fair Work Act.

482 The provisions of the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2009 dealing with the variation of Division 2B State awards in annual wage reviews also apply to copied State awards. Sections 768BY and 768AW(b) of the Fair Work Act.

483 Queensland Government submission, 6 April 2016 at p. 4 and pp. 12–14.

484 Created under Sch. 3, item 43 and Sch. 3A, item 30A of the Transitional Act respectively.

485 Created under Sch. 3A, sub-item 30D(1) as modified by Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2009 (Reg. 3A.01B).

486 See [2013] FWCFB 4000 at para. 555.

487 PR525485.

488 ABI submission, 30 March 2016 at pp. 23–24.

489 ABI submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 24.

490 ACCI response to questions for consultations, 9 May 2016 at pp. 1–2.

491 [2010] FWAFB 9916.

492 MA000100.

493 [2010] FWAFB 9916 at para. 44.

494 Transitional Act, Sch 9, item 5–6 and Sch 5, item 3(2).

495 [2010] FWAFB 9916 at para. 44.

496 Transitional Act, item 10 (1) of Sch. 9 and item 12A of Sch. 3.

497 See [2013] FWCFB 4000 at para. 560, [2014] FWCFB 3500 at para. 572; and [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 536.

498 Transitional Act, item 12A of Sch. 3 and items 10 and 20 of Sch. 9.

499 Fair Work Act, s.284(3).

500 ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 112, paras 323–324.

501 Ai Group submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 30.

502 ACOSS submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 10.

503 ABI submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 22.

504 ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 112, paras 323–324.

505 Ai Group submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 30.

506 ACOSS submission, 7 April 2016 at p. 10.

507 ABI submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 22.

508 [2013] FWCFB 5411; [2014] FWCFB 1846.

509 ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 112, para. 325; ABI submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 23.

510 Ibid at p. 113, para. 329.

511 Ai Group submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 30.

512 ACOSS submission, 7 April 2016 at p. 10.

513 ABI submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 22.

514 [2012] FCAFC 192.

515 ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 113, para. 329.

516 Ibid at p. 113, paras 330–331; Ai Group submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 30; ABI submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 23.

517 ACOSS submission, 7 April 2016 at pp. 38–39.

518 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 552; [2014] FWCFB 3500 at para. 599; [2013] FWCFB 4000 at para. 580; [2012] FWAFB 5000 at para. 303.

519 ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 114, para. 333.

520 Ai Group submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 30.

521 Fair Work Act, s.295(1)(b).

522 [2010] FWAFB 4000 at para. 403.

523 [2014] FWCFB 3500 at para. 606.

524 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 559.

525 ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at pp. 113–114, para. 332; Ai Group submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 33; ABI submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 22.

526 [2011] FWAFB 3400 at para. 381; [2012] FWAFB 5000 at para. 308; [2013] FWCFB 4000 at para. 586; [2014] FWCFB 3500 at para. 606; [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 559.

527 ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at pp. 113–114, para. 332; Ai Group submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 33.

528 MA000021.

529 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 560.

530 ACTU Business Equipment Award submission, 12 February 2016 at p. 4, para. 10.

531 Ibid at pp. 4–5, para. 11.

532 Ai Group Business Equipment Award submission, 11 February 2016 at p. 3; Ai Group submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 32.

533 Ai Group Business Equipment Award submission, 11 February 2016 at p. 4.

534 Ibid at p. 4.

535 [2009] AIRCFB 50 at para 85.

536 See Transcript in Award Modernisation proceedings on 25 February 2009 at PN2089–2094 (submissions by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union); Transcript in Award Modernisation proceedings on 26 February 2009 at PN2613–2635 (submissions by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union); and PN2686–2728 (submissions by Ai Group).

537 See Transcript in Award Modernisation proceedings on 25 February 2009 at PN2017–2037 (submissions by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia); PN2089–2094 (submissions by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union ); Transcript in Award Modernisation proceedings on 26 February 2009 at PN2613–2635 (submissions by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union); and PN2686–2728 (submissions by Ai Group).

538 [2009] AIRCFB 345.

539 Ibid at paras 160–161.

540 [2008] AIRCFB 717.

541 Ibid at para. 20.

542 [2008] AIRCFB 1000.

543 Ibid, at paras 47–50.

544 MA000036.

545 [2009] AIRCFB 345 at para. 107.

546 Casual employees under the Road Transport (Long Distance Operations) Award 2010 [MA000039] are paid a 15 per cent loading while driving (see clause 10.3(b)).

547 [2009] AIRCFB 50 at para 85.

548 Fair Work Act, s.284(3).

549 Re: Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association (2003) 135 IR 1 at para [11] (per Giudice J) and para [24] (per Watson SDP and Raffaelli C).

550 ACTU and Ai Group Business Equipment Award joint submission, 6 April 2016 at para. 18.

551 ACTU response to questions for consultations, 9 May 2016 at p. 15.

552 Ibid at p. 15.

553 ACTU response to questions for consultations, 9 May 2016 at p. 15.

554 [2014] FWCFB 3500 at paras 607–617.

555 MA000104.

556 [2014] FWCFB 3500 at para. 614.

557 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 568.

558 National Minimum Wage Order 2015, clause 9.3.

559 ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at pp. 112–113, paras 320–331; ACOSS submission, 7 April 2016 at p. 35–39.

560 Ai Group submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 31; ABI submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 22.

561 Ai Group submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 32; ABI submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 23.

562 Ai Group submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 32; ABI submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 23.

563 [2015] FWCFB 3500 at para. 576.

564 ACTU submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 113, paras 330–331; Ai Group submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 30; ABI submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 22.

565 ACCER submission, 30 March 2016 at p. 4, para.11.

566 Ibid at pp. 195–196, para. 637.

567 Ibid at pp. 4–5, para. 12.

568 Ibid at pp. 4–5, para. 12; p. 228, para. 733; pp. 229–230, para. 738.

569 Fair Work Australia (2011), Measuring the Needs of the Low Paid, Report to the Minimum Wage Panel, 14 December, PR517718.

570 ACCER submission regarding research proposals for the Annual Wage Review 2013–14 at p. 2, para. 5.

571 [2013] FWCFB 7720 at para. 6.

572 United Voice response to questions for consultations, 9 May 2016 at p. 1.

573 [2015] FWC 7969.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

[2016] FWCFB 3500

31 May 2016