Sunday 15th of June 2025

fat cats in the public piggery....

Our top civil servants are being paid exceptionally well by international standards and much more than our Prime Minister, let alone the ministers to whom they are answerable. Time for change, Rex Patrick says.

When I first tweeted about departmental secretaries’ salaries back in late 2023, the tweet had 450,000 views, and it prompted News Corp to run a piece right around the country entitled “Million dollar club”.

 

Fat cat salaries and the secretive Remuneration Tribunal

by Rex Patrick

 

Scrutiny of these top cat bureaucrats’ salaries over the past two years, and articles by this and other news outlets, led to a Bill being introduced in the Senate – the Remuneration Tribunal Amendment (There for public service, not profit) Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to put an end to the culture of obscene entitlement at the top of the Commonwealth bureaucracy.

“It’s complicated” is the typical answer by those defending the high salaries. But is it?

The head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet gets over $1 million a year and the Secretaries of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Defence and Home Affairs are not far behind at $960,000. In fact, there’s only two departmental heads earning less than $900,000. All earn significantly more than our Prime Minister, who is on $608,000.

These are extremely generous salaries and entitlements by international standards.

US Government departmental secretaries, who head up much larger agencies with much bigger budgets, under US law, get less than half those salaries. They are limited to US$250,000 or around $403,000.

The Bill that is currently before Parliament seeks to limit the salaries of these public officials, which you pay, to that of the Federal Treasurer.

Remuneration Tribunal

The first point of argument to retain these huge salaries is that they’re set by an independent remuneration tribunal.

But the fact of the matter is that the Remuneration Tribunal operates in secrecy, and so far as any outside observer sees, they wander into a room, add a consumer price index number to last year, then leave the room.

The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU), which represents federal public sector workers, states that the tribunal’s determinations are “often succinct with limited detail” compared to the determinations made by the Fair Work Commission for the Annual Wage Review. After publishing its research, seeking public input, and holding public hearings, the Fair Work Commission produces a highly detailed report explaining its decision.

The CPSU argues that,

the decisions of the Remuneration Tribunal rarely have any connection with broader public sector wage policy.

The CPSU points out that right across the top of the public service, the Senior Executive Service enjoys successive wage increases that substantially outpace those of everyday public servants. The gap between those at the top of the bureaucratic tree and those on the branches below has steadily grown.

Market folly

The second claim made in defence of million-dollar salaries is that secretaries must be paid in line with the broader business leadership market in Australia. But that is a highly questionable proposition.

Almost all secretaries are selected from within the public service. They are chosen from a Senior Executive Service made up of officers who have carefully and cautiously climbed the public service ladder, bobbing their heads and adjusting their views to suit the government of the day.

There is no real competition when it comes to the selection of secretaries.

Another area of difference with the public sector is the nature of the job. All CEO’s must have skills in the generation of income and make careful choices on how to spend that income to achieve a company’s current and future objectives, all whilst returning a profit.

Secretaries know little about generating money. Their money simply arrives on their doorstep every May in the form of a budget. Sure, there are fights within government for a share of the budget pie, but that’s at the margins, and the ultimate responsibility rests with Ministers in Cabinet, or rather, the select few of the Expenditure Review Committee.  And, at the end of the day, there is often very little feedback between money spent and whether current objectives are achieved.

There is absolutely no evidence available to suggest any problem recruiting well qualified, experienced and capable departmental secretaries at a more realistic and modest salary. Most public servants enter the service to do good. Sitting at the top of a very good bunch of people involves power, prestige and plenty of perks such as regular air travel coupled at the front of the aircraft with a complimentary QANTAS Chairman’s Lounge membership.

Accountability vacuum

Unlike CEOs in the private sector, secretaries can get away with poor performance and retain their golden salaries. As we’ve seen recently, it takes a Royal Commission to end a secretary’s career (e.g., Kathryn ‘Robodebt’ Campbell) or exposure of serious misconduct (Mike Pezzullo).

Perfunctory performance does not result in harm or dismissal.

Nowhere more prominent is this accountability vacuum that in Defence, where consistent mismanagement results in consistent project failures … and promotion follows.

What loss of tenure?

Andrew Podger, Honorary Professor of Public Policy at the Australian National University, reminded everyone in his submission to the Senate Committee that there is a 20% loading built into a secretary’s salary to compensate them for the loss of tenure that occurred when a contract system was brought in in 1991.

How out of touch is that sort of loading? Who exactly gets one of those?

Secretaries have an amazing redundancy package. The Tribunal, inexplicably, nominates compensation in their determination “for a termination 12 months or more before the end of the Secretary’s term of appointment—12 months’ reference salary at the time of termination”. A million-dollar payout for loss of job!

In their approach to setting such high salaries, the Tribunal thinks that secretaries have a high market rate, but then grant them a redundancy that assumes they’ll struggle to get a job in the event of termination.

Action required

This writer was recently at a social function at Parliament House and leaned over to mention the Bill to a senior Cabinet Minister. The Minister responded, “I agree that secretaries are paid too much, but what do we do about it”.

“Pass the Bill” was my response.

As regular Australians struggle with the cost of living, secretaries swivel at the top of a greasy bureaucratic pole, far removed from the daily lives of the vast majority of Australians. There’s no cost-of-living crisis for them.

How can any of them appreciate the struggles of the average Aussie family when they are rolling in taxpayer-funded cash? Less than 1% of Australians earn more than $350,000 a year, and they’re all members of that club.

It’s this vast gap of experience and understanding that spawned Robodebt and let that scandal grow for years without action.

No public servant should be earning more than our Prime Minister or Treasurer, who both bear huge responsibilities and can suffer from limited tenure when the electorate, or their political colleagues, turn on them.

Even when comparing apples and apples, our departmental secretaries get paid far too much. The US Secretary of Defence runs a department with a larger annual budget than the entire Australian Government; he gets less than half the salary of our Defence Department secretary.

Let’s hope the Finance and Public Administration Committee examines some of the arguments raised and recommends the Bill be passed. There are also some other useful suggestions made in submissions to the inquiry in the event that Senators on the committee don’t have the ticker to remedy the renumeration scandal that’s at the top of the Federal bureaucracy.

Action is needed, and a failure to address this festering issue would be an insult to the millions of hard-working Aussies who pay these senior public servants so much.

 

Rex Patrick is a former Senator for South Australia and, earlier, a submariner in the armed forces. Best known as an anti-corruption and transparency crusader, Rex is also known as the "Transparency Warrior."

https://michaelwest.com.au/fat-cat-salaries-and-the-secretive-remuneration-tribunal/

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

secret info.....

Information is the currency of power in a democracy. It’s what allows informed debate and scrutiny of Government. So, how is transparency shaping up in the 48th Parliament? Rex Patrick takes a look.

Parliamentary power lies in the numbers. With 76 votes in the House and 39 votes in the Senate, a government is only limited by the Constitution.

In the 48th Parliament, Labor will have a clear majority in the House of Representatives with at least 93 members.  Labor will only need to feign respect for others and then get on and do whatever they want. They will be able to push any legislation they want through the House.

The same is not true for the Senate.

Working with current ABC estimates, Labor will have 30 senators, the LNP 27, the Greens 11 and independents 8. To pass legislation, Labor can successfully team either with the Greens (41 votes) or the LNP (57 votes), but not the independents alone (who, together with Labor, only count to 38 votes, which is a tie, and a tie is a ‘no’).

On the flip side, the LNP and Greens (38 votes) can join forces to block legislation (or more votes, if independents also vote against Labor’s legislation). For the avoidance of doubt, the LNP and independents together (35 votes) can’t stop legislation, nor can the Greens and independents (19 votes).

These calculations may change if there are any defections and other changes in allegiance, something that happened in the Senate in the last Parliament, but that’s how things appear to stand now.

Transparency

Let’s pause for a moment on the numbers and talk about transparency basics.

Everything the government does it does for public purpose and on the public dime. Sure, some information should be kept secret – military plans, discussions with ambassadors, policing operations on foot, etc, but the rest should be made available to permit informed debate and scrutiny of government.

But that’s not how governments see it. Governments like to control the timing and content of the information they release. Governments don’t want opposing political parties, the media or the public standing in the way of their plans. And accountability … well, that requires information.

The truth is, transparency is a word only shouted from opposition and the cross-benches in parliament.

Albanese promised greater transparency in opposition. And yet he hasn’t delivered.

Freedom of Information requests and Senate orders for the production of documents yield the same poor results under the Albanese government as occurred under the Morrison government.

Significant delays still occur when appealing an FOI decision to the Information Commissioner – the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has been left underfunded.

Why would things change in a second Albanese term?

Senate influence

The Senate has a number of tools available to force transparency and accountability of the Government.

One measure is the ability to initiate an inquiry into an issue. This requires a majority vote of the Senate. The LNP and Greens would have to join forces (38 votes), with at least one independent (39+ votes), to get an inquiry up in the face of Labor opposition. Getting the LNP and Greens to agree might be challenging, but if that occurs, it won’t be hard to get at least one independent onboard.

Another measure is the ability to order the production of documents (a Senate ‘Freedom of Information’ order). This requires the same 39 votes but is more problematic because the order may also require enforcement. Enforcement is a different process that again needs 39 votes.

In past parliaments, the government of the day has allowed an independent senator’s order for the production of documents to pass the Senate as a way of developing a working relationship with them, because the Government might need their vote at some future point. Senator David Pocock enjoyed this advantage in the last parliament and made good use of it. But he has lost this advantage. He will be cast aside by Labor now.

The ‘parties of Government’

The reader can easily imagine the difficulties of getting the LNP and Greens to align on an inquiry. There will certainly be no inquiries on “drill baby drill” or “LGBTQI rights in the community” while such an inquiry requires right-and-left support.

Everything would be so much better if it were instead about right and wrong.

Political differences will also fetter orders for the production of documents.

Then comes enforcement, when the Government refuses to release documents to the Senate on account of a claim of public interest immunity.

The Senate has tremendous powers to force a government to hand over documents, but has rarely used that leverage. This power can be yielded by the total disruption of the Government’s legislative agenda, the stripping of a minister’s privileges in the chamber, through to expulsion of a minister from the chamber.

Expulsion of a minister was a power exercised in the NSW Legislative Council in 1996, with then NSW Treasurer Michael Egan turfed from the chamber until he handed over documents. This led to the High Court Case of Egan v Willis, where the Court affirmed, as a matter of law, the power of a House or Parliament to demand documents and the ability to expel a minister from the chamber for failing to comply with such a demand.

That ultimately led to an amendment to Standing Order 52 in the NSW Legislative Council whereby all papers ordered to be tabled in the chamber must be made available to members of the Legislative Council. It also provides a member with the right to challenge the withholding of documents from the public, where an independent arbiter (a King’s Counsel or a retired Supreme Court judge) can adjudicate the Government’s claim. This is now a standard practice, where only Cabinet documents are not handed over to the Legislative Council.

Coercive measures are not employed in the Senate because both Labor and the LNP consider themselves to be ‘parties of Government’ – code for, we won’t do it to the current Government in case they do it to us when we are in government. 

Nothing like putting a party’s interests ahead of a constitutional duty of oversight of the executive government.

 

https://michaelwest.com.au/is-labors-large-majority-a-threat-to-truth-in-government/

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.