New Zealanders earn less than Australians but are happier with their salaries, a Hays report finds

Defying the "Aussie Exodus" narrative, a report from recruitment agency Hays finds New Zealanders aged under 24 earn an average annual $10,000 more than their Australian counterparts.

Hays' Salary Guide FY 25/26 shows that's the only age bracket in which New Zealanders are better-paid - from there the gap in favour of Australia is around $5,000 until age 50, where it narrows but persists.

Despite this, the percentage of New Zealanders declaring themselves satisfied with their salary - 64% - was higher than the Australians, at 60%.

Australian organisations reported 2.0% growth in headcount over the previous year, while New Zealand organisations reported just 0.1%.

"Growth of one tenth of one per cent shows how much greater the cost-of-living crisis is in New Zealand," says Hays APAC CEO Matthew Dickason.

"The low overall growth reflects a mix of industries in growth and decline."

Hays' survey gathered responses from 12,000 employers and salaried staff, of which around 1920 were New Zealanders.

"Interestingly," the survey says, "there was no discernible difference in satisfaction levels between men and women at any level of salary."

That's despite a clear salary gap on both sides of the Tasman.

In New Zealand, while 39% of men earned more than $150,000, only 17% of women did.

And as the salary bands climb, so does the the predominance of men. Some 6% of men earned more than $250,000, but only 1% of women.

It picks up a strengthening theme of the post-pandemic years that flexible working is increasingly considered not a "benefit," but an employment given.

Flexibility and additional annual leave (45% in both countries) were the top drawcards among the 25 types of benefit Hays found among its surveyed organisations.

Flexibility was the cited as the most sought-after benefit by 53% of New Zealanders, and 59% of Australians.

Assistance with health insurance is valued highly by 39% of New Zealanders but only 17% of Australians.

"Further study" makes the top four, at 16% in Australia and 15% in New Zealand.

But after the top four, says the report, there was a long tail of other benefits, an additional 21 in all, that rate below 20% in importance.

The report notes a wide divergence of preferences for benefits. Men for example, valued a work vehicle more highly than women, who preferred flexibility and additional leave.

Gym memberships were valued younger workers, while over-50s placed little value on family-orientated benefits.

"The irony of a system that offers at least 25 potential benefits to employees is that there is still a one-size-fits-all mentality.

"To avoid ageism or preconceptions about people's desires, it would be worth employers considering offering a mix of benefits that employees can choose from that best fit what is happening in their life." 

Noting "a lack of logic and consistency" about salary levels, the report says there is even less when it comes to pay rises.

For example, the lack of satisfaction was the same for those who got 2.5% and those who got no pay rise.

"The implication being that, if you're going to offer less than 2.5%, then don't bother."

There was also little difference in satisfaction reported by those receiving between 2.5% and 15% - the satisfaction level remained steady.

"Then it gets even stranger ... when the increase is between 15% and 20%, satisfaction levels drop again.

"Increases of between 10% and 15% had a satisfaction level of 72%, that drops to 64% for increases between 15% and 20%. The dissatisfaction level goes from 28% to 36%."

Normal service is resumed for rise of more than 20%, for which the satisfaction level is 82%.

"The lesson for employers is that if you can give over 20%, then give it, if not, then offer between 2.5% and 5%, or nothing at all."  

Among non-salary attraction and retention factors, some modern causes celebres fail to cut the mustard.

Only 1% of New Zealand respondents rated diversity initiatives as important. Social responsibility initiatives rated 2% and sustainability initiatives 3%.

Employer brand and reputation came in at 15%.

At the other end of the scale, a good work atmosphere got 55% support, work-life balance initiatives 38%, a benefits package 41%, and career development opportunities 30%.

Hays says AI is in part driving a rising tide of applications per job ad.

"The volume of applications has increased significantly, often with highly exaggerated CVs and AI-generated cover letters which overly embellish.

"Those desperate to find a new job continue to apply in even larger numbers and for longer periods, becoming more and more willing to lower their demands."

The effect, says Dickason, is that candidates are reporting it takes far more applications to land a job.

"The system is stuck. The route to a better job is becoming gridlocked."