Jozef Imrich, name worthy of Kafka, has his finger on the pulse of any irony of interest and shares his findings to keep you in-the-know with the savviest trend setters and infomaniacs.
''I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center.''
-Kurt Vonnegut
This week’s bookshop frenzy for a new romantasy title – A Court of Splintered Harmony by Sarah J Maas – prompts some big questions. Why are romantasy plots so silly? Why do smart women love them anyway? And what does it all tell us about men, women and modern love?
The weekend edition of The Front is co-produced by Claire Harvey and Jasper Leak. The host is Claire Harvey. Audio production and editing by Jasper Leak who also composed our theme.
To mark Culture’s first anniversary, we’ve compiled a list of power players shaping the future, and the face, of our creative industries. It’s a snapshot of a cultural landscape in flux: audiences are fragmenting, funding models are strained, technology is rewriting the script, and the question of who gets to tell which stories has never been more urgent.
In this list, there are the institutional leaders setting agendas that outlast seasons, record-breaking stars, both emerging and established, and figureheads steering the arts through its most complex challenges to date. What unites each name is not a shared style, but a shared impact, offering a portrait of what culture means today: contested, collaborative and constantly being rewritten.
A whistleblower scandal cost KPMG Australia’s former chief executive Andrew Yates and ex-chairman Martin Sheppard more than $1.2 million in docked pay and bonuses following their mid-year resignations over the firm’s handling of the matter.
Yet both men still secured multimillion-dollar departure packages, with Yates collecting $6.7 million in earnings and retirement payouts despite forfeiting almost $700,000 in pay, and Sheppard taking home $1.8 million after a $526,000 bonus cut.
Former KPMG chairman Martin Sheppard (left) and former CEO Andrew Yates during a parliamentary hearing in August. Alex Ellinghausen
The figures were revealed in the firm’s Impact Plan and Data Book, two of five annual reports published on Friday detailing aspects of the big four accounting firm’s operations. Other reports covered the firm’s climate disclosures, data about its audit division and its modern slavery statement.
KPMG disclosed that it continued to have issues with staff cheating on internal tests, with 34 cases of employees using artificial intelligence to cheat on internal exams.
The disciplinary panel also substantiated 36 cases of serious misconduct, including four of sexual harassment and 32 policy breaches. The findings led to 11 individuals being fired or asked to resign and 25 written warnings, KPMG reported.
“Serious misconduct within our firm, first raised by a whistleblower and later in the Australian Parliament, together with failures of judgment, governance and leadership, damaged the trust of our stakeholders,” KPMG Australia chief executive John Sams and chairman Michael Ebeid said in a joint statement in the Impact Plan.
KPMG Australia has been in crisis since March, when allegations were raised that audit partners misused confidential client data and leveraged conflicted relationships to win work.
The scandal worsened as the firm’s mismanagement of the wrongdoing and the whistleblower who highlighted the conduct became apparent, prompting an exodus of executives involved in the issue, along with clients, partners and staff.
The reports detail that employees had lost trust in the firm and were less engaged following the scandal. The firm’s engagement index was down eight points to 65 per cent, while the trust index fell 16 points to 62 per cent.
“The misconduct included breaches of client confidentiality and exposed serious shortcomings in our response when one of our people spoke up,” Sams and Ebeid wrote.
“We acknowledge that some partners and people failed to uphold our values and that we took too long to respond appropriately. We got important things wrong and let down the whistleblower and others – and we apologise.”
‘Serious ethical failing’
The firm has launched a second iteration of an action plan to reform its operations after a number of scathing reports into aspects of the scandal and the firm’s mishandling of the whistleblower and his complaints.
This exposed “serious ethical failings” in the firm’s senior ranks and broader culture issues.
After the review, the federal government extended its ban on KPMG bidding for new government work until at least the end of February, telling the firm it must demonstrate it is trustworthy rather than just promise cultural change.
Another report by consultancy Principia Advisory, published on October 11, found that the firm systematically mistreated, marginalised and retaliated against anyone who spoke up about unethical behaviour.
Principia concluded that a relentless commercial pressure to win work and increase revenue fuelled a culture of systemic cheating, driving partners to steal sales credits, under-cost proposals and pressure staff into under-reporting actual hours worked.
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
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
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.
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."
