Widening gap not just a concern for ACT public service executives

It is certainly a concern for the ACT Remuneration Tribunal and likely its chairwoman Anne Cahill-Lambert, who in what could be her final act in the job, opened up this can of worms for the first time since self-government days out from her appointment expiring.

In a discussion paper issued by the tribunal, its members have highlighted the gap in pay rises - up 30.75 per cent for senior executives and up some 36.5 per cent for the general ACTPS.

The tribunal's concern, it seems, is to do with that gap creating a disincentive for longer-term, somewhat senior but lower-ranking ACTPS mandarins to taking the jump to the executive ranks.

Why give up the guarantees of long tenure and leave entitlements for the stress of one of the top jobs, one assumes the thinking is.

The tribunal's paper also sets out to highlight the troubles of, by offering relatively lower-paid jobs in executive roles, the potential for lower-quality candidates rises.

The territory public service is almost certainly never going to compete with the Commonwealth at that tier.

But it could stand a better chance at attracting a few from Sydney or Melbourne, if not the private sector, over the longer term, under the tribunals proposal for a formula to even the playing field.

However, the reality is that those ambitious enough to fill the senior executive roles understand the realities of such work, the fewer leave entitlements and bigger stress levels with bigger pay-packets and cars.

And cars - it would seem almost all territory senior executives don't need them - instead, more than 90 per cent prefer to pocket the $20,000 allowance and drive their own cars, or take the bus, instead.

Who can't do with a little extra, these days?

And there's the rub - the Reserve Bank's most recent analysis shows average incomes since 2008 have risen in real terms about $3 - maybe not quite enough for a coffee in some Barton establishments.

Anyone who has worked in the private sector for the past decade or so would note that certainly, even a three per cent a year increase is not to be sneezed at.

The ultimate test for the review will be looking at the harder economic reality, with a wider lens than that applied to the well-off, or by government press release.

We are all, in Canberra and elsewhere, relatively living better lives than a decade or two ago, but real incomes have not risen with real costs.

Surely, few clearer indicators exist than the latest round of electricity bills and growing hardship applications across Canberra.

It is hoped the tribunal takes seriously its aim in this review to ake sure account of the real-world.

Nonetheless, it would seem that trapeze act will soon fall to a new tribunal chair.