Monday, November 02, 2026

Senate Estimates wrecking balls, silver tongues … The APS pay deal is big beer, so why are we fed bureaucratic waffle?

Make them tell the truth


Has the ATO gone too far? 87% of surveyed accountants say the Tax Office has become more aggressive. Now, the profession is speaking out.


The APS pay deal is big beer, so why are we fed bureaucratic waffle? 

 By Paddy Gourley 

October 30 2026

Negotiations are now well under way for a new pay and conditions deal for staff in the Australian Public Service (APS).
It's a big deal too that will provide the backbone of personnel management for some 200,000 staff for the next three years.
The relatively new Public Service Commissioner, Jacqui Curtis, has brought in one of her former colleagues, Alison Stott, from the Tax Office to run the negotiations. That's not a great vote of confidence in the condition of the organisation which Curtis now heads. She must have been disappointed to find that the Public Service Commission, the central personnel authority in the public service, was left without the capability to undertake one of its main responsibilities off its own bat.
Public Service Commissioner Jacqui Curtis has brought in one of her former colleagues from the Tax Office to run the negotiations. Pictures by Sitthixay Ditthavong, Jeffrey Chan and Shutterstock
Public Service Commissioner Jacqui Curtis has brought in one of her former colleagues from the Tax Office to run the negotiations. Pictures by Sitthixay Ditthavong, Jeffrey Chan and Shutterstock
Anyway, in recent weeks Stott has been running negotiations for a new public service-wide agreement on pay and conditions under the burden of a government remuneration policy that makes no sense. That policy is a mish-mash about "model employer", "unified and capable", "attraction and retention", "fairness and equity" and, of course, that reliable old standby "sustainability", which as ever is expected to carry immense burdens when comprehensible explanations are not available.
In short, the policy does not provide a satisfactory basis upon which judgements about adjustments to pay and conditions can be made, still less justified to staff and taxpayers.
Rational, model employers who want to be able to recruit, retain and motivate staff try to set staff remuneration at competitive levels in relation to outside labour markets for comparable work. That consideration is absent from pay policy for Commonwealth public servants. It's a significant burden for Stott to carry into her negotiations.
Yet while she's been battling away against the tide, some progress may have been made in removing differences in conditions of employment that have been damaging personnel management. But unless the evening up is to the more generous standard this can be difficult, as was discovered when proposals for a common working week raised the ire of some who would have to put in a few minutes more a week. That is, in evening up pay and conditions, pressures to take the highest common denominator are inevitable.
On October 13, Stott tabled the government offer on pay. Essentially, it was for a 9 per cent increase over three years. Surprise, it's the same as has been reportedly offered to the Australian Defence Force (ADF). Yet while the details of the offer on pay have been explained, no justification has been provided for it.
In faint hope, the Public Service Commission was asked about the reasons and rationale for the 9 per cent and whether it was based on any comparisons with levels of remuneration in outside labour markets including state public services.
The commission said that the offer was "informed by a range of factors including but not limited to claims put forward by the bargaining parties, discussions and feedback from the bargaining room, feedback from the 2026 employment conditions survey, input from APS agencies, workforce needs across the public service, broader economic conditions and indicators, and affordability and the need for sustainable outcomes".
That is to say, the 9 per cent is a figure plucked from the air without any consideration about how that will place public service remuneration in relation to the labour market. So there can be no assurance that levels of remuneration are too little and so imperil recruitment and retention, or are too much and so require staff with other employers to subsidise better remuneration than they have.
Mind you, it's not as if this sort of nonsense is new. It's consistent with habits that have gone on for far too long and any number of governments have been unwilling to snap out of it. Curtis and Stott are, to an extent, caught in a tradition that is not of their making and which is now likely to be sealed up for another three years. It's to be hoped they will be able to use that time to reflect upon the bind they're in and convince whatever government they're serving in 2029 to do the right, proper and fair thing by departments, their staff, other employers and taxpayers, because the present policy and its expression lacks all integrity.
When it comes to the crudity of mere cash, the new public service pay and conditions deal is big beer. At this point it's not easy to calculate the cost precisely, although there probably won't be much change left out of $4 billion in the public service alone, not to mention the ADF and other government agencies like the ABC, CSIRO and others.
Sure, public service remuneration needs to be adjusted, but when billions are being spent, taxpayers should be favoured with an explanation of the reasons for doing so that gets above generalised waffle about affordability, sustainability and feedback from the bargaining room, none of which provide the faintest assurance that their money is being well spent.
Model employer? When it comes to industrial relations bargaining and the adjustment of pay and conditions, the Commonwealth is more like a muddle-headed one.
  • Paddy Gourley is a former senior public servant.
  • This article first appeared on John Menadue's public policy site, Pearls and Irritations

We learnt plenty about government spending at Senate estimates this October, and there was no shortage of drama.
So who asked the hard questions? And who rose to the challenge?
Find out here:

The human wrecking balls

Liberal senator Jane Hume has found her feet as the deputy leader of the opposition, and it's no surprise after 10 years in Parliament. Senator Hume was across her brief, persistent in questioning, and picked her moment for political attacks. This involved pressing Treasury officials over growing inflation, and putting figures on public sector growth to Finance Minister Katy Gallagher.
Education secretary Tony Cook, Health secretary Blair Comely, Senator Jane Hume, and Senator Malcolm Roberts. Pictures: Gary Ramage, Karleen Minney, AAP.
Education secretary Tony Cook, Health secretary Blair Comely, Senator Jane Hume, and Senator Malcolm Roberts. Pictures: Gary Ramage, Karleen Minney, AAP.
ACT senator David Pocock used his famous death-stare to good effect, going in to bat for Canberrans and plenty of others. Under questioning from Senator Pocock, National Emergency Management Agency bosses revealed their staff were still waiting for $1.8 million in backpay. He slammed health officials for the botched rollout of an aged care assessment tool. And that was just the beginning.
Greens senator David Shoebridge was everywhere, with questions on migration, the corruption watchdog, offshoring legal transcripts and a host of Defence matters. Senator Shoebridge was incisive, but his scattergun approach left something to be desired for others. In the words of Labor senator Murray Watt: "I always forget you are always the smartest person in the room."

Masters of the brief

Meghan Quinn has led the Department of Defence for all of six months, but it didn't show at estimates. Ms Quinn was across the detail, gave a polished performance, and had choice quips to defend her agency. When grilled over a $1.8 billion investment in tanks that have since sat on the shelf, Ms Quinn said "we do not buy equipment in the hope of using it."
Spare a thought for health secretary Blair Comley, who had to defend his agency's role in two recent bungles at estimates. Alongside the botched rollout of the integrated assessment tool, it emerged that health officials' decisions contributed to a $700 million underspend in funding for aged care packages. Others would have cracked under pressure; Mr Comley stepped in to save his deputies.
Honourable mention to ACT senator and Finance Minister Katy Gallagher, who came within 10 minutes of escaping the hearings unscathed. Ms Gallagher defended the government's use of contractors, reminding the public that there are still circumstances where using external providers makes sense. She urged "respect to all individuals" in comments on gender-neutral language. But questions about inflation near the end of day three caused Ms Gallagher to stumble.

Most improved

One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts is known for asking rhetorical questions at estimates. He came to this round with more facts, intent and policy nous. Senator Roberts asked climate change officials why they didn't change course on Snowy Hydro 2.0 after delays and blowouts. And he forced Australian Federal Police Commissioner Krissy Barrett to commit to no job cuts in the short term.

Special mentions

Education secretary Tony Cook used the most deft of touches to remind senators to behave. In his opening statement, Mr Cook welcomed APS graduates who were observing from the back of the room. Committee chair Marielle Smith quipped: "Hopefully we don't scare them off a lifetime of public service."
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Raelene Sharp faced a barrage of questions from Liberal senator Michaelia Cash at 9pm. Ms Sharp acquitted herself from claims there was a conflict of interest to manage in a high-profile case, with detailed evidence. Not easy after a day of waiting around.
And many thanks to Industry Minister Tim Ayres for keeping estimates interesting. Mr Ayres called opposition leader Angus Taylor the "worst energy Minister ever", said "don't interrupt me" multiple times, and got fed up with Senator Roberts. In Senator Ayres' words, "I don't know how to persuade you, Senator Roberts, because I know you're not listening."
Ray Athwal

Ray Athwal

Data Journalist
Ray Athwal is a data journalist interested in data-driven stories. Got a tip or an idea to share? Email him at ray.athwal@austcommunitymedia.com.au or on Signal @rayathwal.10
Zac Braxton-Smith
Writer covering the public sector after a decade in government, consulting and media. Call 0467 674 451 or email zac.braxton-smith@austcommunitymedia.com.au.
Dave Allen

Dave Allen

Reporter
Dave Allen is a public service and federal politics reporter with an interest in AI, govtech, government integrity and transparency, and the changing day-to-day lives of public servants. He operates out of the federal press gallery and Canberra Times' Civic bureau. Contact him on Signal at daveallen.85 or at dave.allen@canberratimes.com.

‘Who’s going to dob me in?’ Michael Kirby’s literary secret, his great love and a stark national warning



‘Who’s going to dob me in?’ Michael Kirby’s literary secret, his great love and a stark national warning 

The High Court’s first “celebrity judge” reflects on love, poverty, Howard-era battles, and chilling out about a musical on his life. 
Cara Waters 
OCTOBER 28, 2026

He was the High Court’s first “celebrity judge” and still has students and legal practitioners coming up to him to tell him his judgments are their favourites.

Former High Court justice Michael Kirby retired from the bench in 2009 but continues to be in demand as an arbitrator and speaker around the country.

The 87-year-old lives in Sydney but is in Melbourne ahead of delivering the Brotherhood of St. Laurence’s annual Sambell Oration.
Kirby arrives straight from the airport to meet me for lunch at Streat cafe in Collingwood.
In a quiet backstreet, the cafe has a rare luxury in the inner-city suburb – a sun-filled grassy courtyard with tables and chairs where we can sit and talk.
I tell Kirby he was my favourite High Court judge when I studied law because his judgments were always interesting and easy to read.
It’s not the first time Kirby has heard this.
“Everywhere I go, they want to go up and tell me they learned their law through my opinions,” he says.
It’s a nice legacy to have, I say.
“It is, but I don’t get carried away with it,” Kirby says.
Such is his popularity that a production of a musical based on his life is currently under way.
“I sort of vetoed it and said I wouldn’t co-operate,” Kirby says. “But then I wrote back and said if they really want to, they should go ahead.”

He says he’ll go along when it is staged, as long as the musical numbers are decent.
“You’ve got to have some good tunes,” he says.
Kirby’s popularity is partly due to his judgments written in plain legal English rather than the convoluted and more confusing style favoured by some of his contemporaries.
Lunch with Michael Kirby, comprising a spinach and ricotta roll and an Anzac biscuit at Streat cafe.
Lunch with Michael Kirby, comprising a spinach and ricotta roll and an Anzac biscuit at Streat cafe.JASON SOUTH

“You can make things easier to understand if you write in short sentences,” he says. “So that’s what I did.”
Kirby served on the High Court from 1996 to 2009, and during this time he was known for his incisive judgments and for dissenting from the judgment of his colleagues, particularly on matters of civil liberties and human rights.
I ask him if it was lonely dissenting so much, but Kirby says he only really broke ranks when he joined the High Court in response to pressure from parliament “to rein these judges in”, to just apply the law rather than try to address fundamental values.

His rulings, including finding that WorkChoices legislation distorted the constitution, that prisoners deserved the right to vote and that indefinite detention of a stateless migrant was unlawful, attracted the ire of then-prime minister John Howard.
Receipt from lunch at Streat with Michael Kirby.
Howard was often critical of “judicial activism”, and Kirby returned serve by giving speeches defending the right of judges to interpret laws in light of changing social values.
Even when he was in the majority, Kirby often wrote his own separate judgment – a record he’s proud of.
“Chief Justice Mason once gave a big compliment to me,” Kirby says. “He said ‘If you want to know what the case is really about, start with the Kirby judgment’.”
A talent for writing runs in Kirby’s family – he tells me his grandfather, William Spotswood Knowles, was a journalist for The Sydney Morning Herald.
Sadly, Knowles was a little before my time, so we turn to the menu and Kirby confesses he has already eaten on the plane, so isn’t particularly hungry.
A committed pescetarian, he says Qantas’ catering now finally embraces his dietary preferences.
Instead, Kirby orders a mocha and biscuit, which he carefully nibbles on during the course of our discussion, while I order the spinach and ricotta roll with a carafe of sparkling water.
The pastry is buttery and flaky and the creamy ricotta has a salty tang to it.
It’s good, but Kirby chose Streat more for the cafe’s social impact than the quality of its food.
It’s a social enterprise which provides vocational training and support programs for disadvantaged and homeless youth.
He’s been concerned with social justice since he was given a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by his teacher as a student at Fort Street Boys’ High School, in Petersham, in Sydney’s inner west.
Kirby studied law at the University of Sydney and practised as a solicitor and a barrister before his appointment in 1974 as the deputy president of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In 1983, he was appointed to the Federal Court, and then the High Court in 1996.
During his time at the bar and as a judge, Kirby was known for his formidable work ethic, often beginning his day at 5am.
“The Melbourne bar is a late bar, and the Sydney bar is an early bar,” Kirby explains.
“In the old days, before the internet and emails, you could get a few good hours of total silence. You could focus on the problems of your day, clear your head, get across the issues, and how you will express the issues in your head.”
It’s a habit Kirby continues to this day.
Ralph Heiman’s Radical Restraint, featuring former High Court judge Michael Kirby, is one of the most popular pieces at Canberra’s National Portrait Gallery.
Ralph Heiman’s Radical Restraint, featuring former High Court judge Michael Kirby, is one of the most popular pieces at Canberra’s National Portrait Gallery.HEATH MISSEN
He still walks into chambers each day, proudly showing me his watch that shows he has already clocked up more than 6000 steps for the day.
He asks to compare with my watch and is put out that I have eclipsed him with 9000 steps thanks to an early morning run with friends.
“Don’t worry, you’d have me on a normal day,” I tell him.
Since retiring from the High Court, Kirby has not eased up, working with the United Nations and is still in demand as a speaker at universities and for events like the Sambell Oration where he called for a new national approach recognising poverty as a human rights issue.
“The reason I took this topic was because every day when I walk to work, I see people who are seriously poor, sitting on the pavement,” Kirby says. “Sometimes asleep in borrowed bedding, or sometimes with bedding which is handed out to them.”
Kirby says it seems like homelessness is becoming more prevalent and in a wealthy country like Australia, 14.2 per cent of the population shouldn’t live below the poverty line.
“Remember when Bob Hawke promised that no child will live in poverty?” Kirby asks. “The words came back to bite him. But most people would think 14 per cent is quite high for a country like us.”
Kirby warns about the impact of worsening inequality on society pointing to the recent protests and looting in France.
“And having regard to what we’re seeing in the world at the moment, deep unrest of violence, destruction of public property, it’s a warning to us in this way to keep on top of this” he says.
Still sharp as a tack, Kirby is comfortable discussing jurisprudence from 40 years ago as well as the latest decisions from the High Court where he says, “I keep an eye on areas I’m interested in.”
As well as his public speaking duties, Kirby is presiding over a billion-dollar arbitration in India, which involves occasional travel there.
He has agreed with his spouse, Johan van Vloten, that once the arbitration concludes in about three years he will finally actually retire – at the age of 90.
“I’ve done a deal, it’s a Trumpian deal that I will retire when I finish it,” Kirby says. “He says he will believe it when he sees it.”
Van Vloten and Kirby have been together for 57 years and were vocal advocates for the marriage equality vote.
I ask Kirby what it was like coming out as gay in such a high-profile role, and he says for much of his career he was not open about his sexuality.
“The deal was: if you don’t make us think about diversity, we’ll leave you alone,” Kirby says. “And so that’s what I did, and I continued doing that for quite a while.”
Michael Kirby married his partner Johan van Vloten on the 50th anniversary of when they first met in 1969.
Michael Kirby married his partner Johan van Vloten on the 50th anniversary of when they first met in 1969. HADDEN MOTION PICTURES
It was van Vloten who convinced him to help blaze a trail for the next generation as he is from the Netherlands where “they call a spade a shovel” and so told Kirby it was time to stand up for himself.
“What can they do to you?” van Vloten told Kirby. “You are on the highest court on the land.”
Kirby says in the end, van Vloten proved to be correct.
His secret to a long and successful relationship is compromise and mutual interests.
“You’ve got to have one partner who will always give in,” Kirby says. “That’s me. You’ve also got to have mutual interests. Ours is history basically.”
Kirby says he sometimes wonders if he should have been a history professor rather than a lawyer.
When he retires he plans to spend time talking to van Vloten about the history books van Vloten is reading, while Kirby will spend his time reading the London Review of Books.
“That is a wonderful journal, all about a lot of books I will never read,” he says.
I ask whether it is cheating to read the London Review of Books rather than the books themselves. Kirby laughs.
“Who’s going to dob me in?” he says.
Our lunch is over and Kirby carefully places the remainder of his biscuit in a paper napkin to take away for later.
He has some parting advice for me as I attempt to digest our expansive lunch conversation into this article.
“Short sentences. Full stops.”
Noted.

Read more great conversations over lunch