The latest pay deal for Senior Executive Service (SES) officers appears to be yet another step away from a public-service culture (in the best sense of the words). Under the deal, secretaries of Commonwealth departments have been handed very large discretionary power over what SES officers are paid. The arrangement was made with the concurrence of the Community and Public Sector Union, which is surprising.
According to a union bulletin, all public servants will get 5.6 per cent over 18 months. All SES officers will get an additional 2 per cent.
SES officers will get a further 4.6 per cent individually unless the Secretary decides to the contrary. The upper end of each band will be lifted 6.3 per cent, but the increase will not apply to individuals unless the Secretary agrees.
Secretaries will also have the discretion to award “high-flying” SES offices additional bonuses of between 7 and 10 per cent for superior performance and 13 and 15 per cent for outstanding performance. The scheme will replace the present scheme.
Some of the details are yet to be worked out. But it appears that on the union bulletin’s figures, a SES officer could be eligible for a 33.5 per cent pay rise over the next 18 months. Of this, 7.6 would be automatic and 25.9 per cent discretionary to the Secretary.
The first point is that the rises are far too high in Australia’s present economic circumstances and will cause justified outrage among ordinary wage-earners who get rises nothing like this. It will cause outrage among high-income-earners in the private sector, too. They will argue that they earn their income according to a demonstrable bottom line.
Secondly, it is likely that at least some of the discretionary elements will be dished out fairly liberally so that as a scheme for rewarding excellence, the scheme will partially fail. The 4.6 per cent will be virtually automatic and that the majority will get a bite at one of the rises in the “outstanding” or “superior” category. No doubt the union and the government will argue that the new system will encourage excellence and be handed out sparingly under strict guidelines (which have yet to be worked out). However, the history of the previous performance pay system suggests otherwise, getting more generous the higher up the ladder (and closer to the secretary) you get. Far from rewarding a select few high performers the previous system appeared to punish a few non-performers (fair enough) and those who did not toe the line (not fair enough). One has to be sceptical on whether the new scheme will be any different.
Thirdly, to the extent the scheme provides so much discretion to the secretary, it is as likely to encourage toadyism rather than excellence. This is the more so in an environment where excellence and performance are virtually impossible to measure and essentially rely on a subjective assessment by the secretary. Toadyism to the secretary is also likely to result in a vicarious politically toadyism to the Minister.
The Public Service has gone far too far in trying to emulate the private sector without any of the external forces that can curb private-sector excess. Worse, it is doing so at the expense of one of the traditional roles of public servants that were perhaps worth paying for with some unavoidable inefficiency _ fearless advice.