Executive remuneration has been one of the most controversial issues in corporate governance. In the wake of global economic crisis, executive payment was put on spotlight after reports found out that executives pursued strategies that rewarded them handsomely without considering the risk involved. Various reports looking into the issue of global economic crisis found out that high executive perks were among the reasons leading to economic crisis. Most companies reward executives with high pay and huge perks as a way of motivating them to perform more. Realizing that their payments and perks are pegged on organizational financial performance, executives have pursued strategies that rake in huge financial returns but with high risk. As a result, most companies have found themselves in financial crisis and government use taxpayer’s money to bail them out. While the government has remained a passive player on this issue, it is taxpayers who end up bailing out these companies. The report on Executive Remuneration in Australian looked into organizational practices in executive payment and the role of the government. This paper will look into the issue of executive remuneration based on this report into two perspectives – one perspective when the government is an active player in regulating executive remuneration and the other when the government plays not role.