The problem
A tribunal can re-set the value of work. It cannot dictate what follows.
Australian wage-setting decisions have recognised that feminised care and community work was historically undervalued. The legal record is detailed. The labour-market record — what changed for workers, employers, funders and services afterwards — is much harder to see.
Common surveys can show wages, hours and employment, but they do not directly observe award coverage, classifications, pay points, over-award margins, funding exposure or whether an employer absorbed, passed on or resisted a new wage floor. REVALUE-AU makes those connections explicit.
The programme spine
An evidence platform, not a catalogue of wage cases.
Each institutional intervention is treated as a traceable sequence: what was decided, who was exposed, when the change became operative, and which outcomes could plausibly move next.
Build a verified record of decisions, coverage, quantum, staging, operative dates and the mechanism of change.
Translate legal language into transparent exposure measures for workers, occupations, sectors, employers and funders.
Track wages, hours, employment, retention, mobility and the organisational responses around a re-priced job.
Ask whether changes in labour costs and workforce stability alter capacity, quality, access and the distribution of care.
Pilot evidence
The pilot changes the question from “did wages rise?” to “what can these data establish?”
The initial HILDA-based study uses the SACS sequence to test the measurement and design problem before the broader platform is built. It is deliberately cautious: the pilot is a feasibility and evidence-mapping exercise, not a claim that one observational estimate settles the causal question.
The pooled wage estimate in the current pilot draft, with a 95% confidence interval of approximately −0.047 to 0.076. The lesson is about detectable effect size, exposure measurement and comparator design — not a clean “no effect” conclusion.
- WagesEstimate the overall wage signal while showing how broad treatment definitions can dilute exposure.
- Hours and work statusExamine whether adjustment appears through hours, part-time work, employment or job transitions.
- Design disciplineSeparate legal timing from implemented exposure and keep uncertainty visible at every stage.
Data architecture
Start with what is available. Design towards what would sharpen the evidence.
REVALUE-AU is designed as a staged data strategy. It can begin with transparent public and survey evidence, while building the relationships and specifications needed for stronger administrative and sector-level analyses.
HILDA
Worker-level wages, hours, employment and transitions for the pilot and design diagnostics.
Legal-economic platform
Structured decisions, occupations, awards, implementation dates, quantum and institutional mechanisms.
PLIDA and LFS
Prospective pathways to improve worker, employer and labour-market exposure measurement.
STP and sector data
Potentially sharper evidence on payroll adjustment, workforce stability, funding and service delivery.
Partner opportunities
Better evidence on what wage correction does once it enters the workplace.
Partners can help identify the implementation details that broad surveys miss — and help shape outputs that are useful to people making decisions about work, funding and care.
Policy and legal institutions
Help interpret decisions, timing, coverage and the practical meaning of a revaluation event.
Employers and sector bodies
Clarify implementation, workforce responses, recruitment constraints and service pressures.
Funders and commissioners
Connect wage correction to funding design, pass-through, capacity and quality.
Data and research partners
Build the linked evidence needed to distinguish legal recognition from realised adjustment.
A project to build together
What happens after work is revalued?
Read the discussion one-pager, or get in touch if your organisation can help make the legal, economic and service-delivery sequence visible.