Women are paid the same as men for equal work

At one point, it concludes: "to the extent that the gap is gender-based, we should take action to correct it", suggesting considerable uncertainty. But then, further on, it states unequivocally that, "we consider gender has been important in creating the gap between pay in the SACS industry and pay in comparable state and local government employment".

The decision has some other curious aspects. For example, SACS workers enjoy much more generous salary packaging arrangements than public sector workers. But according to FWA, it "would not be appropriate to regard the possible benefits of salary packaging as equivalent to remuneration".

This is just daft: salary packaging clearly confers real advantages on recipients that are the equivalent of cash.

Based on research using data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey, we also know that when award-dependent workers are considered as a group, there is no gender pay gap.

In other words, award rates of pay for males and females are effectively equal. Were female award rates of pay to be lifted significantly, we might find submissions being made on behalf of men employed in male-intensive sectors, whose work would now look undervalued.

There is no doubting that the issues with which this decision is grappling are difficult. There are no clear principles that govern the determination of non-market rates of pay and the capacity, or perhaps the willingness, of governments to pay must be a consideration. But as David Gregory of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has pointed out, "The tribunal has worryingly left the door open to comparisons of public and private sector wage rates in the name of gender equity."

The fact FWA has effectively reserved its decision to a later date and requires additional information on the costings of various proposals is important.

The potentially adverse consequences of handing down unfunded pay rises are, indeed, mentioned in the decision.

We will have to wait and see how this plays out. At a minimum, the tribunal is likely to recommend a phasing in of any pay rises. But the real danger is the precedent this decision sets, based on faulty analysis of the reasons for pay differences that are unrelated to gender.

The fact a group of female workers is paid less than another group of "carefully selected" workers does not necessarily mean the principle of equal remuneration is violated.