Here is one that will probably upset a few people.

But I think it needs to be said.

Australia needs a serious conversation about the total remuneration paid across government — politicians, public servants and employees of government bodies more broadly.

And to be clear, this is not an attack on everyone who works in the public sector.

There are plenty of very good people doing important work.

The issue is not the people.

The issue is the system.

The playing field is not level

The standard Super Guarantee rate in Australia is now 12%.

Yet across parts of the government sector, employer superannuation can be higher, with some government employees receiving contributions of up to 18%.

Add to that, depending on the role:

• generous leave
• flexible working conditions
• salary packaging
• FBT concessions in some areas
• strong job security
• legacy defined benefit arrangements.

Individually, some of these benefits can be justified.

But when you add the whole package together, it can become extremely attractive.

And SMEs simply cannot compete with that.

Government does not face the same commercial pressure

A small business owner has to win the work, deliver it, invoice the customer, collect the cash, pay staff and super, fund leave, insurance, software, rent and compliance — and hopefully have something left over.

If costs get out of hand, the owner wears it.

Government is different.

If headcount increases, taxpayers fund it.

If employment conditions become more expensive, taxpayers fund it.

If an inefficient system continues, ultimately taxpayers fund that too.

And the taxpayer is not some unknown, nameless person.

It is you and me.

This is also an entrepreneurship problem

Australia says it wants entrepreneurship, innovation and stronger industry.

But we have created an environment where the lower-risk employment path can also offer very attractive remuneration and conditions.

On one side:

• good salary
• higher super in some roles
• substantial leave
• flexibility
• strong job security
• limited commercial risk.

On the other:

• put your own money on the line
• work longer hours
• employ people
• take financial risk
• deal with compliance
• hope the business succeeds.

Why would everyone take the harder road?

If we keep making the risk-taking lane harder while making the taxpayer-funded lane more comfortable, we should not be surprised when fewer people choose entrepreneurship.

That affects productivity, innovation and Australia’s future industrial capability.

Good conditions should not mean a blank cheque

I am all for paying people properly.

I am all for fair wages and good working conditions.

But fairness has to cut both ways.

If the normal private sector Super Guarantee rate is 12%, then in my view, 12% should generally be the government standard as well.

There will obviously be exceptions.

Police, defence personnel, emergency services and other specialised or dangerous roles may have legitimate reasons for different arrangements.

Fine.

Have that discussion openly.

But special arrangements should have a clear justification.

What about people who take advantage of the system?

This is the uncomfortable part.

Any generous employment system will attract some people who are very good at maximising the benefits available to them.

That does not mean everyone does it.

And genuine illness, caring responsibilities and workplace flexibility absolutely should be supported.

But there is a difference between sensible protections and a culture where flex time, sick leave or other entitlements are treated as something to use simply because they exist.

Business owners see that.

And when a private employer is trying to retain good people under real commercial constraints, that creates frustration.

Legacy defined benefits deserve scrutiny

Legacy defined benefit schemes were created in a very different economic environment.

Existing legal entitlements obviously need to be respected.

But when governments are constantly looking for more revenue while businesses and households are being asked to absorb increasing costs, these arrangements should not be beyond scrutiny.

At the very least, governments should understand and disclose what these commitments are costing taxpayers.

SMEs cannot keep carrying more of the load

The broader point is simple.

We cannot keep asking the productive parts of the economy to carry increasing costs while maintaining taxpayer-funded employment structures that ordinary businesses could never afford.

SMEs already deal with rising wages, superannuation, insurance, compliance and operating costs.

Creating an even wider gap between government employment conditions and what commercial businesses can realistically provide only makes that harder.

My view

The principles should be straightforward.

Pay people appropriately.

Be transparent about the whole remuneration package.

Use the standard superannuation rate unless there is a genuinely defensible reason not to.

Review legacy defined benefit arrangements properly.

Be honest about FBT and salary packaging advantages where they exist.

And stop pretending SMEs are competing on a level playing field.

Australia needs good government and good public servants.

But we also need entrepreneurs, SMEs and people prepared to take risks, employ others and build something.

Right now, in my view, the balance is off.

What do you think? Are government employment packages still justified, or has the gap with the private sector become too wide?

Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and does not take into account your personal circumstances. It is not financial or tax advice. You should seek independent advice from a qualified professional before making decisions about tax, legal or financial planning matters, along with loan structures or entity structure.