If the councils really want to pay their chief executives more, then I have a suggestion – amalgamate | Caleb Bond

Let’s all spare a thought for the poor old council CEO who just saw their soaring salary ambitions come crashing down, writes Caleb Bond.

Spare a thought for the poor council chief executives who will have to take a pay cut. It honestly couldn’t have happened to a better bunch of people.

OK, I am being a bit gratuitous – some of them are, in my experience, decent people trying their best to work with some difficult councillors.

But you can’t help feeling a bit of schadenfreude given the extortionate rate rises many councils have thrust upon us in recent years.

There’s Norwood Payneham & St Peters, which last year jacked rates up by 7 per cent and now wants to add another 9.49 per cent this year.

Or Burnside, which last year slugged ratepayers an extra 9.8 per cent – after trying 14 per cent on for size – and is proposing 6.95 per cent this year.

How many of you, dear readers, managed to get a 9.8 per cent pay rise last year?

The councils are upset, though – they want to be able to pay their chief executives more.

Some have written to the state’s Remuneration Tribunal, which sets the wage bands for council bosses, to complain about these forced pay cuts because, well, reasons.

Burnside, for instance, argued its head honcho Julia Grant should be eligible for more than the previous limit of $351,520 because of “the complexities and unique challenges faced by the council, including highly engaged and affluent population, significant media scrutiny, and ongoing political challenges that make the CEO role more challenging than most”.

Oh, the indignity of having to deal with pesky journalists interrogating the decisions of your council – sling her another $20,000 immediately.

SA Premier Peter Malinauskas remains safe from the lure of a more lucrative switch to local councils. Picture: Mark Brake

Now Burnside’s limit has been reduced to $321,424. How sad.

Adelaide City Council had requested to increase the maximum pay limit for its CEO to $500,000 – more than the Premier’s $460,000 annual salary.

Burnside Council CEO Julia Grant. Picture: City of Burnside

Councils argue they need higher wage limits so they can recruit the best candidates for the job.

The Remuneration Tribunal, meanwhile, holds the commonsense position that chief executives should be paid commensurate with the characteristics of the council, rather than based on the experience and capabilities of any individual.

You could argue that Commonwealth Bank boss Matt Comyn would make the best council chief executive in the country but there’s no way the pay he would demand could be a value-for-money proposition for ratepayers.

The tribunal simply says that ratepayers should get value for money. What a novel idea.

But if the councils really want to pay their chief executives more, then I have a suggestion – amalgamate.

The bigger the council, the bigger the job, so the bigger the salary.

Burnside, with its upper limit of $321,000, had 46,030 residents at the last census. Canterbury-Bankstown Council in Sydney had 371,006 residents and paid its boss $544,676 on the latest figures.

In terms of dollars earnt per head of population, you’re doing far better running Burnside.

So be my guest – merge councils and then we’ll talk about higher pay.

Something tells me they’d rather take this deal instead.

Originally published as If the councils really want to pay their chief executives more, then I have a suggestion – amalgamate | Caleb Bond