Hey Big Spender! - An analysis of Australian universities and staff pay

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Blitz

Analyzes aggregated 2007 staff statistics submitted by Australian universities to DEST and salary schedules published on university websites. Examines general staff remuneration across salary levels and HEW ranks, focusing on disparities in staffing structures and effective wage dates. The study excludes heterogeneous staff categories and non-higher-education sector employees to enable a more homogeneous comparison, revealing substantial variation between universities despite sector convergence.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages9

Reading Time23 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Methodology

Data sources

Staff classification and exclusions

Salary information collection

General staff distribution by HEW level

Observed salary variation between universities

A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W Hey Big Spender! An analysis of Australian universities and how much they pay their general staff Ian R Dobson Monash University Analysis of aggregated data files on staff sent by all Australian universities to DEST in 2007 and of salary schedules posted on university websites reveals a considerable variation between salaries paid to general staff at each salary level and the relative seniority of those staff. This paper outlines the differences in staffing structures and identifies the higher-paying (and therefore the lower-paying) universities in a sector that is otherwise notable for its convergence rather than its diversity. Introduction There is a perception that there is little variation in the salaries Australian universities paid their staff at any given rank. What did vary in some instances was the salary range considered to be appropriate for undertaking a particular function. It is likely that this is still the case. Some universities might place a higher weight on a given function than other universities, or perhaps larger universities pay higher salaries than smaller ones for some functions, on the grounds of size and/or complexity. Rather than there being sector-wide determinations of salary levels, institutions and workers strike their own bargain for salary levels and the date from which those salaries become effective. Over time, this has led to disparities between universities. Methodology Two sources of data were employed for this study. Staff statistics were obtained from the DEEWR website (DEEWR 2008) . Staff numbers expressed in full time equivalents were used.The focus of the study was general staff, but only those reported by their institutions of having a ‘function’ described as ‘Other’.‘Function’is a defined term universities must follow when sub- mitting staff statistics. ‘Other’ staff are those that are not ‘Teaching Only’ or ‘Teaching and Research’, both of which are the preserve of ‘academic’ staff. General staff CAN be classified as having a ‘Research Only’function, but many universities include all their general staff as ‘Other’. In order to consider a homogeneous staff population, some categories of staff were excluded. General staff described by their university as fulfilling a ‘ResearchOnly’ function were not included, because many universities do not attribute the ‘Research-Only’ function to any of their general staff. Staff working for universities but not in the higher education sector (such as in dual-sector universities) were also excluded, as were staff working in Cooperative Research Centres and‘controlled entities’. These staff groups aren’t present in all universities, and were excluded with the intention of analysing a predominantly homogenous general staff population. Salaries information was obtained from university websites, and this was a straightforward matter formost universities. In many cases, typing ‘salary’ into the university’s internal search engine yielded the required information within a few key-strokes. However, a couple of universities seemed disinclined to provide this most basic piece of information. In a vol. 51, no. 1, 2009 Hey Big Spender! , Ian R Dobson 39 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W Table 1: University Staff 2007 by Function (FTE) | Staff Type | Teaching Only | Research Only | Teaching & Research | Other | Total | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Academic | 863 | 9188 | 25122 | 633 | 35806 | | General | | 2552 | | 43825 | 46377 | | Total | 863 | 11740 | 25122 | 44458 | | Source: DEEWR. Aggregated Data Set ‘Stag2007’ couple of cases, a laborious search for well-hidden enterprise agreements was necessary.The salary information used below reflects the second point of the scale for each level, and where relevant, the salaries paid to staff working 35 hours per week were used. Where necessary, recent job advertisements were used to

FAQs

What data sources are used to analyze university staffing and pay?

The study uses staff statistics from the DEEWR website and salary information gathered from university websites (including job advertisements when needed).

How does the paper define the staff group it analyzes?

It focuses on general staff and uses the university-defined ‘function’ category, particularly those reported as ‘Other’, while excluding staff with ‘Research Only’ functions and certain non-higher-education or special-purpose groups.

Why do salary differences between universities persist even after accounting for wage-effective dates?

The paper notes that wage determination effectiveness dates explain some variation, but substantial gaps remain, indicating additional differences in how universities set and apply salary arrangements.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Blitz