The Cost of Bureaucracy: A Closer Look at Australia’s Deputy Secretaries

When governments expand, they rarely do it for free — and never without consequence. Behind every new compliance form, consultation roundtable, or harvest strategy draft is a well-paid bureaucrat writing more work for themselves. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the upper tiers of Australia’s public service.

Understanding the Role of Deputy Secretaries

Take Deputy Secretaries — the elite senior executives sitting just under Departmental Secretaries. Their job is multifaceted. It involves strategy, oversight, and increasingly, justifying their own existence through regulation. This raises questions about effectiveness and accountability within our public service.

🧾 Follow the Money

There are an estimated 65 Deputy Secretaries across the 16 federal departments. Each one costs, on average, $468,584 per year in total remuneration — that includes salary, super, benefits, and allowances.

Australians are footing a significant bill for this small but powerful group. Over $30.4 million per year is spent just on Deputy Secretaries at the federal level. Some departments have more than five Deputy Secretaries, while others bring in special advisors and interdepartmental appointees. State-level equivalents only add more fat to the bureaucracy.

And the cost doesn’t stop there. In 2023, a Deputy Secretary advising on AUKUS at the Department of Defence was paid $892,630 annually — nearly double the average amount, and more than the Prime Minister earns. Is this public service or executive indulgence?

So what do we get in return for this substantial funding?

We get regulation — more paperwork, more restrictions, more strategies, and more stakeholder workshops. Unfortunately, practical outcomes are rare, especially for commercial fishers and seafood consumers.

🎣 Death by Red Tape

Australia is home to some of the most sustainable fisheries in the world. Yet, commercial fishers are being regulated out of existence. They aren’t being shut down due to bad practices; rather, they are being buried under bureaucracy.

Each new “harvest strategy” or regulatory tweak creates justification for more staff, more senior roles, and more departmental layers. It’s a bloated, self-perpetuating machine— one that feeds itself while slowly starving the industries it oversees.

Meanwhile, Australian seafood lovers find themselves pushed to the margins. Over 65% of seafood consumed in Australia is imported, often from countries with lax environmental laws and questionable labour practices. Why? Because our own fishers can’t compete in a system designed to over-manage them.

🐟 Who’s Protecting What?

The departments claim to be protecting the fishery. But the reality is stark. The estuaries are silting up, pollution goes unaddressed, and vital infrastructure is crumbling. The only guarantee is an increase in the bureaucratic headcount.

It’s time for a serious evaluation of who benefits from the current system. It’s not the fisher. It’s not the consumer. And it’s certainly not the future of Australian seafood.

The Need for Change

What we truly need is fewer regulators and more responsibility. Cutting the fat is essential. We should stop rewarding bureaucratic expansion and start investing in real-world stewardship. This includes clean water, local supply chains, and practical support for commercial operators.

Every dollar spent on inflated bureaucracy is a dollar not spent protecting our fisheries. We should advocate for a more efficient public service model. It’s crucial for the sustainability of our fisheries as well as our economy.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the intention behind employing Deputy Secretaries and expanding government oversight may be to ensure effectiveness, the reality often points to inefficiency and inflated costs. We must question the status quo. The future of Australia's seafood and our fishing industry depends on it. Change is needed, and it’s time we move toward a more balanced and responsible approach to governance.

— This is a call to action for both citizens and policymakers alike. Let’s support a sustainable future that prioritizes both our industries and the environment.