Menu lock


Sep 20, 2011

RBA pay: why Glenn Stevens is not Elizabeth Taylor

The RBA's decision to jack up the pay of its most senior management by 30% during the 2008/09 financial year, the nadir of the global financial crisis, might have been impolitic, says Adam Creighton.

An exchange between Sir Humphrey Appleby and the Minister of Administrative Affairs in the early 1980s highlights best the remuneration dynamics of the public service. It went something like this:

Sir Humphrey: Her Majesty’s Civil Servants spend their lives working for a modest wage and at the end they retire into obscurity.
The Minister: A modest wage? You get over £30,000 a year. Seven thousand more than I get!
Sir Humphrey: But still a relatively modest wage.
The Minister: Relative to whom?
Sir Humphrey: Well … Elizabeth Taylor for example.
The Minister: You are not relative to Elizabeth Taylor.

Notwithstanding the Reserve Bank’s excellent record and deft management of Australia’s economy, especially during the GFC, its decision to jack up the pay of its most senior management by 30% during the 2008/09 financial year, the nadir of the global financial crisis, might have been impolitic.

Prosecuting tighter monetary policy might be tougher, and the bank’s good reputation marred, as the popular press routinely draw attention to the decision. Moreover, such largesse with taxpayers’ money was bound to elicit a response from government.

Last year it emerged the salaries for the roles of governor and deputy governor surpassed $1 million and $800,000, dwarfing the incomes of key permanent secretaries and the Commissioner of Taxation in Canberra, the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Chief of the Defence Force and practically every bureaucrat in the modern world ever.

The response has arrived. Last month Minister of State Gary Gray designated the governor and deputy governor of the Reserve Bank “principal executive offices”; they will share Classification Band E with the managing directors of Medibank Private, the Australian Submarine Corporation and the CSIRO.

Henceforth the remuneration of the bank’s most senior two officers will be guided by the Remuneration Tribunal, a statutory authority independent of government; the other executives’ salaries will remain subject to the Reserve Bank board. The tribunal believes for example the governor’s responsibilities “are not greater” than the Treasury secretary. Nothing will change in the short-term, however.

The pay increase reflected the “significance and diversity of responsibility” of the positions and the need to “attract and retain” staff. Neither argument is axiomatic.

Assigning relative “importance” to senior public officials, for instance, is problematic. Whether monetary policy is more important than defending the country, interpreting the constitution, or collecting taxes is moot. Everyone thinks his job is significant and diverse.

As for retaining staff, what fraction of governors and deputy governors in the history of the bank have been poached by better offers in the private sector? Zero is the best guess. Moreover, Treasury has retained men of the calibre of Ken Henry and Martin Parkinson, who’ve been scraping by on about $500,000 a year (still about 13 times the median full-time wage). Where was the exodus?

Public sector pay will soon be in the news again. In March 2010 the Remuneration Tribunal indicated it would reveal before year’s end new salaries for departmental secretaries “substantially above the current level”. Eighteen months later we are still waiting.

The debate about the supposed “inadequacy” of public service is naive and insults public servants to boot.

First, the skills acquired in the public service are, generally, not readily applicable to the private sector. Indeed, public servants develop a sense of procedure and caution, nurtured in roles the market is self-evidently not willing to pay for, which can be antithetical to private enterprise. Senior public servants also enjoy very significant non-pecuniary benefits — prestige (including potential receipt of honours), job security, and generous retirement and maternity benefits, for example.

It is naive to assume public servants are driven mainly by money. Our Westminster-style civil service requires and fosters a sense of duty and loyalty among public servants, which constant prattling about “pay imbalances” corrodes.

Executives extract vast sums from their shareholders, but not by compulsion. Remuneration in the public sector, by contrast, must observe a morality and restraint that private salaries do not.

The economics profession has unfortunately entrenched the idea that workers are driven solely by total financial remuneration, that “talent” follows money alone. This perverse understanding is overwhelmingly refuted by introspection and observation, yet it has flourished since the 1980s, reaching its zenith in banks before the financial crisis.

The public service should not degrade itself by aping the greed endemic elsewhere.

I suspect the Reserve Bank governors will have the last laugh, however. The tribunal will “resolve” the remuneration disparity by granting the same $1 million pay to the permanent secretaries as well, which might explain the tribunal’s tardiness in releasing its report.

A random committee of taxpayers would probably not reach the same conclusion.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Leave a comment

4 thoughts on “RBA pay: why Glenn Stevens is not Elizabeth Taylor

  1. stephen martin

    It certainly is a pretty good pay deal, especially when you compare it with other senior Public Service staff.
    But maybe the correct comparison is to the largesse paid to the CEOs of the big four banks; it then gives validity to the remark of it being necessary for the retention of senior staff in the Reserve Bank.



    While one cannot be sure of the detail, there is a chance this extract is not correct:

    ””””””””As for retaining staff, what fraction of governors and deputy governors in the history of the bank have been poached by better offers in the private sector? Zero is the best guess.”””””””””

    Oveer the past two decades it could well be that M J Phillips was paid more collectively for holding of senior board positions than he was paid at the RBA — and the same goes for IJ Macfarlane who now also sits very comfortably on a couple of major company boards.

    One can only hope that Bernie Fraser, who went on to be a foundation stone of the industry super fund revolution was similarly paid much more — but the better bet is that he did the wonderful job for less.

    [Check with Stephen Mayne — he has a feel for this stuff.]

  3. bluepoppy

    It is a furphy to believe that quality staff cannot be found for senior public service positions unless they are competitive with industry.

    How many CEOs have retired with large bonuses while share prices have fallen and with the company in trouble. High salaries does not = high quality in many cases. Part of working for the public service is the notion of service, otherwise nurses and doctors would be demanding million dollar salaries for much more important work.

    Elizabeth Taylor indeed.

  4. Stephen

    I had always thought of our RBA as an outstanding agency, and had blessed Coombs and soforth for their foresight in setting it up. Its reputation has been trashed by the Securency scandal, then by Stephens’ utter arrogance in front of committee, re the concealment of his salary hike. Top RBA salaries should be pulled back to the already-bloated figures earned by departmental secretaries. If the RBA head thinks he can reward himself a cool mil and no apologies, then without apologies I’ll think he’s making decisions the rich people and not the common weal.