Top bureaucrats’ pay shouldn’t come close to the PM’s

Chris Uhlmann’s column citing the pay packets of our senior mandarins would surely have had readers of The Weekend Australian choking on their Weet-Bix (“Canberra’s top bureaucrats best paid in the world”, 15-16/2). Australia is clearly a world leader in the bureaucrat remuneration stakes, despite the country’s relatively puny place in the global scheme of things. It’s quite outrageous that a civil servant should be earning nearly double the Prime Minister’s pay, although no doubt Sir Humphrey (of Yes, Prime Minister fame) would consider it entirely appropriate.

Most Australians would surely endorse Uhlmann’s suggestion that no public servant should be paid more than the PM, and no departmental head more than their minister. With this sort of remuneration gluttony taking place at the highest levels of government, it’s hardly surprising that unions are getting in on the act, not least the union representing Sydney train drivers, who are waging an industrial campaign for a 32 per cent increase in their pay.

This payment, just under $130,000, already dwarfs the take-home pay of train drivers in most other countries, including Japan, where fast, efficient trains operate to a punctuality that commuters here can only dream of.

Peter Austin, Mt Victoria, NSW

Anyone with an understanding of the demands at senior executive level in both the private and the public sector would be sympathetic to the views expressed by Chris Uhlmann to reduce the pay of top public servants. Similar situations exist at state and council levels. It can be argued that the pay disparity between the PM and the most senior public servants is both unnecessary and unjustified.

Senior public servants would argue that their contract conditions and the possibility of instant dismissal make them vulnerable. But that’s little different to what applies in the private sector.

Put bluntly, current public service remuneration packages across the country are out of control, and Uhlmann is right to raise this issue.

Michael Schilling, Millswood, SA

Research funds furore

Natasha Bita makes a compelling case that the Australian Research Council should cancel its $870,000 grant to Macquarie University staff member Randa Abdel-Fattah (“Universities are meant to educate, not indoctrinate”, 15-16/2).

Why should the Australian taxpayer continue to fund this radical activist who paradoxically talks at an anti-racist conference of “white supremacists”, boasts of bending the rules and refusing to cite authoritative scholars who have “remained silent over Gaza”, while also calling for the “end of Israel” and teaching young children how to hate by chanting the word “intifada”? What governance does the ARC have in place to ensure our taxpayer research dollars are spent wisely?

Allan Kalus, Windsor, Vic

Gazans’ future in limbo

David Kilcullen writes that transforming Gaza into “the Riviera of the Middle East” would present overwhelming challenges but it’s worth looking at (“After the Apocalypse”, 15-16/2).

The most difficult problem is to find a place for the resettlement of civilians from Gaza, with Arab neighbours unwilling to accept them.

Interestingly, the most widely supported outcome of a “two-state” solution would require Palestinians from both Gaza and the West Bank to come together under common leadership. Perhaps moving Gazans to the West Bank should be considered, enabling rehabilitation of Gaza and at the same time demonstrating the viability of a Palestinian state. The West Bank has more territory and could easily accommodate the increased population.

Greg Perryman, East Melbourne, Vic

Navalny’s sacrifice

On the anniversary of his death on February 16, 2024, Western journalists and the global public continue to question why political activist Alexei Navalny chose to return to Russia after being poisoned by Putin’s agents in August 2020.

They wonder if it would not have been more profitable for him to protest from the safety of exile after recovering in Germany.

At the core of this question is a cultural difference: while the modern West prioritises personal safety, power and material success, traditional Russian Orthodox spirituality values sacrifice and suffering as paths to spiritual transformation. Navalny’s return to Moscow was an act of spiritual conviction, not a pursuit of power or wealth.

I believe Navalny’s actions stand as a stark reminder of a morality that prioritises enduring hardship for justice over individual wellbeing, reflecting a spiritual depth that remains foreign to many in the modern West.

Adrian Rosenfeldt, Wandin North, Vic