The APS's march towards $1 million salaries
Successive pay rises have pushed Prime Minister and Cabinet secretary Steven Kennedy and Treasury secretary Jenny Wilkinson past the $1 million mark for the 2025-26 financial year, and their colleagues are not far behind.
Dr Kennedy, who is the country's most senior bureaucrat, earns nearly triple the highest rate for United States departmental secretaries, set at $250,600 USD as of January, or about $386,237 AUD.
The march towards million-dollar pay began just over a decade ago, when new legislation returned the power to set senior public service salaries to the Remuneration Tribunal.
While Dr Kennedy plays a role in deciding pay for some of his colleagues, the greatest influence is exerted by the tribunal.
It recommends secretaries be placed in either an upper or lower level of remuneration, and also considers annual pay rises. The figures it decides on include salary, allowances, benefits and superannuation.
In 2011, the tribunal had been concerned for some time that secretary salaries were well below what they should be, and had not kept pace with the rising earnings of their subordinates in the Senior Executive Service.
It recommended an overhaul of the structure used to determine pay for APS bosses, rebasing the uppermost point - the salary of the Prime Minister and Cabinet secretary - to more than $800,000 by mid-2014.
Ten pay rises since 2011 have brought secretary salaries to where they are today.
If the tribunal decides on a 2 per cent pay rise in 2026, without changing the current structure, four more secretaries will rise above the $1 million mark.
This will include the heads of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Health and Infrastructure.
Two per cent is the lowest pay rise the tribunal has approved since 2011, and public service employees will receive a 3.4 per cent hike in 2026.
While this appears likely given the tribunal's past decisions, it could also decide to hold off.
The tribunal must look at annual wage decisions and also weighs up APS wage increases, consumer price index and wage price index.
In 2020, as the Australian economy faced the COVID-19 pandemic and public sector wages were frozen, the tribunal announced it would not offer a pay rise.
"The Tribunal's primary focus is to provide competitive and equitable remuneration that is appropriate to the responsibilities and experience required of the roles, and that is sufficient to attract and retain people of calibre," it said at the time.
"However, this does not happen in a vacuum. The context of the broader jobs market and the economy are also considered."
The body can also dock a secretary's pay, based on Machinery of Government changes that shrink the scope of their responsibilities, but incumbents are protected from having pay go backwards.
Health secretary Blair Comley has meanwhile received an extra promotion, taking his salary from $910,270 to $983,910, after his department gained oversight of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
While Labor maintains that secretaries' pay is an independent decision, there is room for political intervention.
The tribunal noted in 2020 that it had received a request from then finance minister Mathias Cormann and assistant public service minister Greg Hunt to freeze pay for APS bosses, and opted to comply.
The steady increase has caused concern among some politicians, who earn considerably less than their senior bureacrats.
"They earn more than me," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said when asked about the issue earlier in the year, in reference to his salary of about $622,000.
Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie last year called on Parliament to radically reduce the earnings of senior public servants, capping remuneration at about $430,000 unless otherwise approved by the relevant ministers.
"Departmental secretaries have important responsibilities, and their pay should be appropriate to ensure those positions are competitively filled by capable people," Senator Lambie said at the time.
"But the present levels of pay at the top of the bureaucratic and academic trees don't pass the pub test."
Meanwhile, independent senator David Pocock wants to see the tribunal consider performance in its decisions. The current system is based on the size of departments and the scope and complexity of the portfolio.
"Senior public servants in Australia are paid well above those in most comparable OECD countries, including in Europe, the UK and US," Senator Pocock said.
"We want to be able to attract the best and brightest to lead our public service, but at the same time, we need to ensure remuneration is tied to performance and that is lacking in our current system.
"I would like to see reform in this space as we continue to value and build the capacity of the APS more broadly into the future."
Public Service Minister Katy Gallagher told The Canberra Times in March that while she was sympathetic to the public's concerns, "it's hard to unwind a system that's been put in place over many years".
"I get people's concerns with that, I do," Senator Gallagher said at the time.
"I understand it when they see it in isolation, or relate it back to their own experience of work, but I also know how hard [secretaries work].
"These are serious jobs, and we need the best and brightest, and we need to retain them in the public service."
Already some of the world's best-paid senior public servants, Australia's departmental secretaries are on the brink of earning million-dollar pay packets in the coming years.
Successive pay rises have pushed Prime Minister and Cabinet secretary Steven Kennedy and Treasury secretary Jenny Wilkinson past the $1 million mark for the 2025-26 financial year, and their colleagues are not far behind.
Dr Kennedy, who is the country's most senior bureaucrat, earns nearly triple the highest rate for United States departmental secretaries, set at $250,600 USD as of January, or about $386,237 AUD.
The march towards million-dollar pay began just over a decade ago, when new legislation returned the power to set senior public service salaries to the Remuneration Tribunal.
While Dr Kennedy plays a role in deciding pay for some of his colleagues, the greatest influence is exerted by the tribunal.
It recommends secretaries be placed in either an upper or lower level of remuneration, and also considers annual pay rises. The figures it decides on include salary, allowances, benefits and superannuation.
In 2011, the tribunal had been concerned for some time that secretary salaries were well below what they should be, and had not kept pace with the rising earnings of their subordinates in the Senior Executive Service.
It recommended an overhaul of the structure used to determine pay for APS bosses, rebasing the uppermost point - the salary of the Prime Minister and Cabinet secretary - to more than $800,000 by mid-2014.
Ten pay rises since 2011 have brought secretary salaries to where they are today.
If the tribunal decides on a 2 per cent pay rise in 2026, without changing the current structure, four more secretaries will rise above the $1 million mark.
This will include the heads of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Health and Infrastructure.
Two per cent is the lowest pay rise the tribunal has approved since 2011, and public service employees will receive a 3.4 per cent hike in 2026.
While this appears likely given the tribunal's past decisions, it could also decide to hold off.
The tribunal must look at annual wage decisions and also weighs up APS wage increases, consumer price index and wage price index.
In 2020, as the Australian economy faced the COVID-19 pandemic and public sector wages were frozen, the tribunal announced it would not offer a pay rise.
"The Tribunal's primary focus is to provide competitive and equitable remuneration that is appropriate to the responsibilities and experience required of the roles, and that is sufficient to attract and retain people of calibre," it said at the time.
"However, this does not happen in a vacuum. The context of the broader jobs market and the economy are also considered."
The body can also dock a secretary's pay, based on Machinery of Government changes that shrink the scope of their responsibilities, but incumbents are protected from having pay go backwards.
Health secretary Blair Comley has meanwhile received an extra promotion, taking his salary from $910,270 to $983,910, after his department gained oversight of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
While Labor maintains that secretaries' pay is an independent decision, there is room for political intervention.
The tribunal noted in 2020 that it had received a request from then finance minister Mathias Cormann and assistant public service minister Greg Hunt to freeze pay for APS bosses, and opted to comply.
The steady increase has caused concern among some politicians, who earn considerably less than their senior bureacrats.
"They earn more than me," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said when asked about the issue earlier in the year, in reference to his salary of about $622,000.
Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie last year called on Parliament to radically reduce the earnings of senior public servants, capping remuneration at about $430,000 unless otherwise approved by the relevant ministers.
"Departmental secretaries have important responsibilities, and their pay should be appropriate to ensure those positions are competitively filled by capable people," Senator Lambie said at the time.
"But the present levels of pay at the top of the bureaucratic and academic trees don't pass the pub test."
Meanwhile, independent senator David Pocock wants to see the tribunal consider performance in its decisions. The current system is based on the size of departments and the scope and complexity of the portfolio.
"Senior public servants in Australia are paid well above those in most comparable OECD countries, including in Europe, the UK and US," Senator Pocock said.
"We want to be able to attract the best and brightest to lead our public service, but at the same time, we need to ensure remuneration is tied to performance and that is lacking in our current system.
"I would like to see reform in this space as we continue to value and build the capacity of the APS more broadly into the future."
Public Service Minister Katy Gallagher told The Canberra Times in March that while she was sympathetic to the public's concerns, "it's hard to unwind a system that's been put in place over many years".
"I get people's concerns with that, I do," Senator Gallagher said at the time.
"I understand it when they see it in isolation, or relate it back to their own experience of work, but I also know how hard [secretaries work].
"These are serious jobs, and we need the best and brightest, and we need to retain them in the public service."
Already some of the world's best-paid senior public servants, Australia's departmental secretaries are on the brink of earning million-dollar pay packets in the coming years.
Successive pay rises have pushed Prime Minister and Cabinet secretary Steven Kennedy and Treasury secretary Jenny Wilkinson past the $1 million mark for the 2025-26 financial year, and their colleagues are not far behind.
Dr Kennedy, who is the country's most senior bureaucrat, earns nearly triple the highest rate for United States departmental secretaries, set at $250,600 USD as of January, or about $386,237 AUD.
The march towards million-dollar pay began just over a decade ago, when new legislation returned the power to set senior public service salaries to the Remuneration Tribunal.
While Dr Kennedy plays a role in deciding pay for some of his colleagues, the greatest influence is exerted by the tribunal.
It recommends secretaries be placed in either an upper or lower level of remuneration, and also considers annual pay rises. The figures it decides on include salary, allowances, benefits and superannuation.
In 2011, the tribunal had been concerned for some time that secretary salaries were well below what they should be, and had not kept pace with the rising earnings of their subordinates in the Senior Executive Service.
It recommended an overhaul of the structure used to determine pay for APS bosses, rebasing the uppermost point - the salary of the Prime Minister and Cabinet secretary - to more than $800,000 by mid-2014.
Ten pay rises since 2011 have brought secretary salaries to where they are today.
If the tribunal decides on a 2 per cent pay rise in 2026, without changing the current structure, four more secretaries will rise above the $1 million mark.
This will include the heads of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Health and Infrastructure.
Two per cent is the lowest pay rise the tribunal has approved since 2011, and public service employees will receive a 3.4 per cent hike in 2026.
While this appears likely given the tribunal's past decisions, it could also decide to hold off.
The tribunal must look at annual wage decisions and also weighs up APS wage increases, consumer price index and wage price index.
In 2020, as the Australian economy faced the COVID-19 pandemic and public sector wages were frozen, the tribunal announced it would not offer a pay rise.
"The Tribunal's primary focus is to provide competitive and equitable remuneration that is appropriate to the responsibilities and experience required of the roles, and that is sufficient to attract and retain people of calibre," it said at the time.
"However, this does not happen in a vacuum. The context of the broader jobs market and the economy are also considered."
The body can also dock a secretary's pay, based on Machinery of Government changes that shrink the scope of their responsibilities, but incumbents are protected from having pay go backwards.
Health secretary Blair Comley has meanwhile received an extra promotion, taking his salary from $910,270 to $983,910, after his department gained oversight of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
While Labor maintains that secretaries' pay is an independent decision, there is room for political intervention.
The tribunal noted in 2020 that it had received a request from then finance minister Mathias Cormann and assistant public service minister Greg Hunt to freeze pay for APS bosses, and opted to comply.
The steady increase has caused concern among some politicians, who earn considerably less than their senior bureacrats.
"They earn more than me," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said when asked about the issue earlier in the year, in reference to his salary of about $622,000.
Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie last year called on Parliament to radically reduce the earnings of senior public servants, capping remuneration at about $430,000 unless otherwise approved by the relevant ministers.
"Departmental secretaries have important responsibilities, and their pay should be appropriate to ensure those positions are competitively filled by capable people," Senator Lambie said at the time.
"But the present levels of pay at the top of the bureaucratic and academic trees don't pass the pub test."
Meanwhile, independent senator David Pocock wants to see the tribunal consider performance in its decisions. The current system is based on the size of departments and the scope and complexity of the portfolio.
"Senior public servants in Australia are paid well above those in most comparable OECD countries, including in Europe, the UK and US," Senator Pocock said.
"We want to be able to attract the best and brightest to lead our public service, but at the same time, we need to ensure remuneration is tied to performance and that is lacking in our current system.
"I would like to see reform in this space as we continue to value and build the capacity of the APS more broadly into the future."
Public Service Minister Katy Gallagher told The Canberra Times in March that while she was sympathetic to the public's concerns, "it's hard to unwind a system that's been put in place over many years".
"I get people's concerns with that, I do," Senator Gallagher said at the time.
"I understand it when they see it in isolation, or relate it back to their own experience of work, but I also know how hard [secretaries work].
"These are serious jobs, and we need the best and brightest, and we need to retain them in the public service."
Already some of the world's best-paid senior public servants, Australia's departmental secretaries are on the brink of earning million-dollar pay packets in the coming years.
Successive pay rises have pushed Prime Minister and Cabinet secretary Steven Kennedy and Treasury secretary Jenny Wilkinson past the $1 million mark for the 2025-26 financial year, and their colleagues are not far behind.
Dr Kennedy, who is the country's most senior bureaucrat, earns nearly triple the highest rate for United States departmental secretaries, set at $250,600 USD as of January, or about $386,237 AUD.
The march towards million-dollar pay began just over a decade ago, when new legislation returned the power to set senior public service salaries to the Remuneration Tribunal.
While Dr Kennedy plays a role in deciding pay for some of his colleagues, the greatest influence is exerted by the tribunal.
It recommends secretaries be placed in either an upper or lower level of remuneration, and also considers annual pay rises. The figures it decides on include salary, allowances, benefits and superannuation.
In 2011, the tribunal had been concerned for some time that secretary salaries were well below what they should be, and had not kept pace with the rising earnings of their subordinates in the Senior Executive Service.
It recommended an overhaul of the structure used to determine pay for APS bosses, rebasing the uppermost point - the salary of the Prime Minister and Cabinet secretary - to more than $800,000 by mid-2014.
Ten pay rises since 2011 have brought secretary salaries to where they are today.
If the tribunal decides on a 2 per cent pay rise in 2026, without changing the current structure, four more secretaries will rise above the $1 million mark.
This will include the heads of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Health and Infrastructure.
Two per cent is the lowest pay rise the tribunal has approved since 2011, and public service employees will receive a 3.4 per cent hike in 2026.
While this appears likely given the tribunal's past decisions, it could also decide to hold off.
The tribunal must look at annual wage decisions and also weighs up APS wage increases, consumer price index and wage price index.
In 2020, as the Australian economy faced the COVID-19 pandemic and public sector wages were frozen, the tribunal announced it would not offer a pay rise.
"The Tribunal's primary focus is to provide competitive and equitable remuneration that is appropriate to the responsibilities and experience required of the roles, and that is sufficient to attract and retain people of calibre," it said at the time.
"However, this does not happen in a vacuum. The context of the broader jobs market and the economy are also considered."
The body can also dock a secretary's pay, based on Machinery of Government changes that shrink the scope of their responsibilities, but incumbents are protected from having pay go backwards.
Health secretary Blair Comley has meanwhile received an extra promotion, taking his salary from $910,270 to $983,910, after his department gained oversight of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
While Labor maintains that secretaries' pay is an independent decision, there is room for political intervention.
The tribunal noted in 2020 that it had received a request from then finance minister Mathias Cormann and assistant public service minister Greg Hunt to freeze pay for APS bosses, and opted to comply.
The steady increase has caused concern among some politicians, who earn considerably less than their senior bureacrats.
"They earn more than me," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said when asked about the issue earlier in the year, in reference to his salary of about $622,000.
Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie last year called on Parliament to radically reduce the earnings of senior public servants, capping remuneration at about $430,000 unless otherwise approved by the relevant ministers.
"Departmental secretaries have important responsibilities, and their pay should be appropriate to ensure those positions are competitively filled by capable people," Senator Lambie said at the time.
"But the present levels of pay at the top of the bureaucratic and academic trees don't pass the pub test."
Meanwhile, independent senator David Pocock wants to see the tribunal consider performance in its decisions. The current system is based on the size of departments and the scope and complexity of the portfolio.
"Senior public servants in Australia are paid well above those in most comparable OECD countries, including in Europe, the UK and US," Senator Pocock said.
"We want to be able to attract the best and brightest to lead our public service, but at the same time, we need to ensure remuneration is tied to performance and that is lacking in our current system.
"I would like to see reform in this space as we continue to value and build the capacity of the APS more broadly into the future."
Public Service Minister Katy Gallagher told The Canberra Times in March that while she was sympathetic to the public's concerns, "it's hard to unwind a system that's been put in place over many years".
"I get people's concerns with that, I do," Senator Gallagher said at the time.
"I understand it when they see it in isolation, or relate it back to their own experience of work, but I also know how hard [secretaries work].
"These are serious jobs, and we need the best and brightest, and we need to retain them in the public service."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
42 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Ken Henry says tax system is failing young Australians and warns the case for lifting tax-to-GDP ratio is now ‘much, much stronger'
Former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry has urged Australia to 'prepare ourselves for the worst,' cautioning that while he hopes the government can avoid lifting the nation's tax-to-GDP ratio, the argument for doing so is now 'much, much stronger'. Mr Henry made the comments at a tax reform roundtable hosted by independent MP Allegra Spender on Friday, where he outlined the need to reduce reliance on income tax and flagged concerns about the growing economic burden on younger Australians. 'Tax reform packages must be revenue neutral, and I suggest that we should be thinking about designing the tax system that would do least economic damage as we lift the revenue-to-GDP ratio over time,' Mr Henry said. 'I can understand that some people don't want to quantitate that prospect, but we've been aware of the need to avoid that prospect for 23 years since the first intergenerational report was published in 2002 and the case for having to lift the tax-to-GDP ratio is much, much stronger, but I still hope we can avoid it.' Mr Henry, who served as Treasury boss from 2001 to 2011, said the current tax mix was too heavily dependent on personal income tax and offered little fairness between generations. He argued the system should do more to support productivity growth, warning that bracket creep – where inflation pushes workers into higher tax brackets – placed disproportionate pressure on the young. 'We need to reduce reliance on bracket creep,' he said, adding that boosting productivity was essential for raising wages and lifting national revenue without further tax hikes. Mr Henry also didn't shy away from politically sensitive areas, calling for reforms that could improve housing affordability. He said the government should be open to examining negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions for property investors. 'Anything that makes housing more affordable,' he said, should be on the table. In a stark assessment of Australia's preparedness for a changing global economy, Mr Henry said the tax system was no longer suited to today's challenges. 'The current tax system is not fit for today's increasingly dangerous times,' he said. 'I used the word dangerous quite deliberately.' He also raised concerns about high corporate tax rates deterring overseas investment, while suggesting that politically favoured sectors were under-taxed. Ms Spender, the Member for Wentworth, echoed Mr Henry's concerns and said younger Australians were bearing the brunt of a tax system stacked against them. 'We have a tax system that taxes people most heavily when they are young and under most financial pressure – paying off student loans, trying to buy a house, starting families, paying childcare – and less when they can afford it,' she said. 'Young people are the group that can least afford it.' Speaking ahead of the roundtable, Ms Spender said her goal was to make tax reform more relatable to the broader public, even if that meant stepping outside her comfort zone. 'We're actually doing lifestreaming on YouTube. I've been doing some slightly cringe-worthy Instagram videos on tax reform recently, just trying to bring more people into this conversation,' she said on ABC Radio National. 'Because tax matters to all people, it influences our country, but it's sometimes pretty hard to get your head round and I do want people to be able to get informed.' Ms Spender said Friday's discussion was part of a broader push, with Treasurer Jim Chalmers set to convene his own tax roundtables in the coming weeks. 'The Treasurer has now opened the door to tax reform,' she said. 'I feel that tax reform has the opportunity to help Australia solve some of its biggest problems like sluggish productivity growth, like the fact that young people can't get ahead, like the fact that we need to make this climate transition as cheap as possible. 'But to be honest tax hasn't really been on the table until now.' Treasurer Jim Chalmers has welcomed Ms Spender's initiative, saying he would 'obviously listen to and respect the views put forward'.
Sydney Morning Herald
3 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The wealthy have been shielded from Britain's big problem
London: Fury swept across Britain's social media five days ago when residents of a wealthy part of London heard of government plans to move hundreds of asylum seekers into a hotel in their neighbourhood. Within hours, activists were posting videos from outside the hotel to call on politicians to send the outsiders away. The hotel in Canary Wharf, where luxury apartments tower over old docklands, was soon surrounded by protesters and police – turning it into the latest flashpoint in Britain's ferocious argument about refugees and migration. 'I can now confirm that the Britannia International Hotel in Canary Wharf has been handed over for use by asylum seekers and refugees,' posted Lee Nallalingham, a resident of Tower Hamlets, the council area that includes Canary Wharf, in London's east. 'That hotel is a five-minute walk from my daughter's nursery. It's surrounded by other nurseries and primary schools. And yet nobody asked local parents what we thought. Why are they being placed in one of the most expensive areas of London, next to schools, while locals can't get housing, safety, or basic services? 'Where's the consultation? Where's the protection for local families? Once again – no answers. Just secrecy and silence.' There was just one problem. Nallalingham wrongly asserted that people were being moved to Canary Wharf from an asylum seeker hotel in the town of Epping Forest, the scene of riots on Sunday night when protesters hurled flares, eggs and rocks at police. This was inflammatory because of the fury over the hotel in Epping, just outside London. But it was not true. Nallalingham was not caught up in the details. He is the chairman of the Reform UK branch in the Tower Hamlets area and was spreading the word for a purpose. Reform UK, the party led by right-wing politician Nigel Farage, is making big gains by tapping into grievances over the economy, gender politics, migration and refugees. So the outrage over asylum hotels is turning into another powerful campaign for Farage and Reform – and a disaster for Labour Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who once promised to shut them down. The Australian parallels are inescapable when Farage uses a simple rallying cry – 'stop the boats' – to build support. Another Reform UK politician, Lee Anderson, stood outside the Canary Wharf hotel to do a video for the X social media site about the imminent arrival of asylum seekers. Farage reposted this to his 2.2 million followers. The message helped to foment a street protest within hours. So what was really happening? Yes, the hotel was being prepared to house asylum seekers. No, they were not coming from Epping Forest. The British department charged with border security, the Home Office, made it clear there were no asylum seekers actually in the Canary Wharf hotel while the protesters stood outside. But it confirmed it had reserved more than 400 beds at the hotel to prepare for further asylum seeker arrivals in the weeks ahead. And the deeper truth? Britain is struggling with the weekly arrival of people on inflatable boats who cross the English Channel in the hope of gaining refugee status and finding work in a wealthy country. There were 60 people last Sunday, for instance, and 132 on Wednesday. On some days, there are none. Over the first six months of this year there were 19,982, according to a tally by Reuters based on public data. That was a 50 per cent increase from the same period last year. Starmer blames the previous government for the problem – with good cause, given the Conservatives ruled from 2010 to 2024 without stopping the boats. But Starmer has been in power for a full year. There are no signs that his policies are slowing the arrivals. The wealthy have been mostly shielded from this reality, especially in the finer neighbourhoods of London. Those on the lower rungs of the British class structure, however, have seen it up close when the asylum seekers are housed in their communities. With no end to the arrivals, more hotels are set up – and wealthier neighbourhoods like Canary Wharf take notice. At the same time, the community depends on migrants for essential services: cleaning the London Underground, staffing the supermarket, delivering food, serving at the takeaway. Citizens turn against migrants at the very moment they seem to rely on them more than ever. Inflammatory rhetoric fuels the discontent. Laila Cunningham, a Reform UK councillor on Westminster City Council in the heart of London, berated Labour and the Tories on Wednesday for losing control of the border. 'The Tories let in 6.5 million people over 14 years,' she said. The result, she added: 'Waves of unvetted young men, many of whom do not share our values and show no respect for British women.' Cunningham appeared to be exaggerating. The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford has tracked the annual intake, based on public data, and its chart shows net migration of about 5 million from June 2012 to June 2024. Even so, the inflow has been running ahead of what the community wants. Public polling highlights the concern. The Migration Observatory reported results from 2023 showing that 52 per cent of British adults want migration to be reduced, while 14 per cent want it increased. Another 22 per cent want it to stay the same, while the remainder were undecided. The concern is not new because objections to migration helped shape the referendum in favour of Brexit. What has changed is the sense of urgency some voters feel about the challenge. In June 2016, when the voting public chose Brexit, 48 per cent of respondents said migration was an important issue. It fell away for years in public polling, but now it's back. It climbed to 38 per cent last October. Starmer is feeling the pressure to find a fix. 'We will stop at nothing to tackle illegal migration,' he said on Wednesday. In fact, there is a shortage of ideas to discourage the arrivals. Australia sent asylum seekers to remote islands and turned boats around in the Indian Ocean. The UK has not copied the Australian approach in the narrow confines of the English Channel, so it has to devise its own solution. The asylum hotels are part of a broader 'dispersal' policy for asylum seekers to spread them across the country. There were 38,000 asylum seekers in hotels at the end of last year, with another 65,000 in 'dispersal' housing such as private flats or hostels run by companies for the government. This is very different to the Australian policy, with so much attention on Manus Island and Nauru. In Britain, the experience is intensely local. The Epping Forest riots took place after the community reacted to an incident between an asylum seeker and a local girl. The man, Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, from Ethiopia, was charged with three counts of sexual assault, one count of inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity and one count of harassment without violence. He denied all the offences when he appeared in court on July 10. Another case led to a conviction five days ago. Moffat Konofilia, 48, an asylum seeker from Solomon Islands, approached a girl, 17, on the beach at Weymouth in southern England in December 2023. A magistrate found him guilty of one count of sexual assault. When these cases make headlines, the community reacts. And Farage can turn that reaction into a mushroom cloud. Starmer and his ministers are trying to find new ways to slow the arrivals. They have a deal with French President Emmanuel Macron to return some people to France. They have announced sanctions on those in the asylum seeker trade. Individuals face financial sanctions, and the Chinese company that advertises its inflatable boats to people smugglers will be banned from doing business in the UK. Loading The riots over the past week have put a public face on the immense strain on Britain. It is an angry face, sometimes covered in a balaclava, unleashing rage at those in authority. The rioters do not speak for Britain because the data shows that many people want mercy shown to those who cross the Channel. But the public mood has turned against welcoming asylum seekers. Times are tough for many communities, and voters have reason to feel aggrieved. Every asylum seeker arrival can add to the sense that the system is broken. Every crime can add to the pressure. Even a tweet might set off a riot.
The Age
3 hours ago
- The Age
The wealthy have been shielded from Britain's big problem
London: Fury swept across Britain's social media five days ago when residents of a wealthy part of London heard of government plans to move hundreds of asylum seekers into a hotel in their neighbourhood. Within hours, activists were posting videos from outside the hotel to call on politicians to send the outsiders away. The hotel in Canary Wharf, where luxury apartments tower over old docklands, was soon surrounded by protesters and police – turning it into the latest flashpoint in Britain's ferocious argument about refugees and migration. 'I can now confirm that the Britannia International Hotel in Canary Wharf has been handed over for use by asylum seekers and refugees,' posted Lee Nallalingham, a resident of Tower Hamlets, the council area that includes Canary Wharf, in London's east. 'That hotel is a five-minute walk from my daughter's nursery. It's surrounded by other nurseries and primary schools. And yet nobody asked local parents what we thought. Why are they being placed in one of the most expensive areas of London, next to schools, while locals can't get housing, safety, or basic services? 'Where's the consultation? Where's the protection for local families? Once again – no answers. Just secrecy and silence.' There was just one problem. Nallalingham wrongly asserted that people were being moved to Canary Wharf from an asylum seeker hotel in the town of Epping Forest, the scene of riots on Sunday night when protesters hurled flares, eggs and rocks at police. This was inflammatory because of the fury over the hotel in Epping, just outside London. But it was not true. Nallalingham was not caught up in the details. He is the chairman of the Reform UK branch in the Tower Hamlets area and was spreading the word for a purpose. Reform UK, the party led by right-wing politician Nigel Farage, is making big gains by tapping into grievances over the economy, gender politics, migration and refugees. So the outrage over asylum hotels is turning into another powerful campaign for Farage and Reform – and a disaster for Labour Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who once promised to shut them down. The Australian parallels are inescapable when Farage uses a simple rallying cry – 'stop the boats' – to build support. Another Reform UK politician, Lee Anderson, stood outside the Canary Wharf hotel to do a video for the X social media site about the imminent arrival of asylum seekers. Farage reposted this to his 2.2 million followers. The message helped to foment a street protest within hours. So what was really happening? Yes, the hotel was being prepared to house asylum seekers. No, they were not coming from Epping Forest. The British department charged with border security, the Home Office, made it clear there were no asylum seekers actually in the Canary Wharf hotel while the protesters stood outside. But it confirmed it had reserved more than 400 beds at the hotel to prepare for further asylum seeker arrivals in the weeks ahead. And the deeper truth? Britain is struggling with the weekly arrival of people on inflatable boats who cross the English Channel in the hope of gaining refugee status and finding work in a wealthy country. There were 60 people last Sunday, for instance, and 132 on Wednesday. On some days, there are none. Over the first six months of this year there were 19,982, according to a tally by Reuters based on public data. That was a 50 per cent increase from the same period last year. Starmer blames the previous government for the problem – with good cause, given the Conservatives ruled from 2010 to 2024 without stopping the boats. But Starmer has been in power for a full year. There are no signs that his policies are slowing the arrivals. The wealthy have been mostly shielded from this reality, especially in the finer neighbourhoods of London. Those on the lower rungs of the British class structure, however, have seen it up close when the asylum seekers are housed in their communities. With no end to the arrivals, more hotels are set up – and wealthier neighbourhoods like Canary Wharf take notice. At the same time, the community depends on migrants for essential services: cleaning the London Underground, staffing the supermarket, delivering food, serving at the takeaway. Citizens turn against migrants at the very moment they seem to rely on them more than ever. Inflammatory rhetoric fuels the discontent. Laila Cunningham, a Reform UK councillor on Westminster City Council in the heart of London, berated Labour and the Tories on Wednesday for losing control of the border. 'The Tories let in 6.5 million people over 14 years,' she said. The result, she added: 'Waves of unvetted young men, many of whom do not share our values and show no respect for British women.' Cunningham appeared to be exaggerating. The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford has tracked the annual intake, based on public data, and its chart shows net migration of about 5 million from June 2012 to June 2024. Even so, the inflow has been running ahead of what the community wants. Public polling highlights the concern. The Migration Observatory reported results from 2023 showing that 52 per cent of British adults want migration to be reduced, while 14 per cent want it increased. Another 22 per cent want it to stay the same, while the remainder were undecided. The concern is not new because objections to migration helped shape the referendum in favour of Brexit. What has changed is the sense of urgency some voters feel about the challenge. In June 2016, when the voting public chose Brexit, 48 per cent of respondents said migration was an important issue. It fell away for years in public polling, but now it's back. It climbed to 38 per cent last October. Starmer is feeling the pressure to find a fix. 'We will stop at nothing to tackle illegal migration,' he said on Wednesday. In fact, there is a shortage of ideas to discourage the arrivals. Australia sent asylum seekers to remote islands and turned boats around in the Indian Ocean. The UK has not copied the Australian approach in the narrow confines of the English Channel, so it has to devise its own solution. The asylum hotels are part of a broader 'dispersal' policy for asylum seekers to spread them across the country. There were 38,000 asylum seekers in hotels at the end of last year, with another 65,000 in 'dispersal' housing such as private flats or hostels run by companies for the government. This is very different to the Australian policy, with so much attention on Manus Island and Nauru. In Britain, the experience is intensely local. The Epping Forest riots took place after the community reacted to an incident between an asylum seeker and a local girl. The man, Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, from Ethiopia, was charged with three counts of sexual assault, one count of inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity and one count of harassment without violence. He denied all the offences when he appeared in court on July 10. Another case led to a conviction five days ago. Moffat Konofilia, 48, an asylum seeker from Solomon Islands, approached a girl, 17, on the beach at Weymouth in southern England in December 2023. A magistrate found him guilty of one count of sexual assault. When these cases make headlines, the community reacts. And Farage can turn that reaction into a mushroom cloud. Starmer and his ministers are trying to find new ways to slow the arrivals. They have a deal with French President Emmanuel Macron to return some people to France. They have announced sanctions on those in the asylum seeker trade. Individuals face financial sanctions, and the Chinese company that advertises its inflatable boats to people smugglers will be banned from doing business in the UK. Loading The riots over the past week have put a public face on the immense strain on Britain. It is an angry face, sometimes covered in a balaclava, unleashing rage at those in authority. The rioters do not speak for Britain because the data shows that many people want mercy shown to those who cross the Channel. But the public mood has turned against welcoming asylum seekers. Times are tough for many communities, and voters have reason to feel aggrieved. Every asylum seeker arrival can add to the sense that the system is broken. Every crime can add to the pressure. Even a tweet might set off a riot.
