Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Earlier this year, the Prime Minister announced that Samantha Mostyn would take up the reins as Australia's 28th Governor-General on 1 July 2024, following on from the announced retirement of His Excellency General the Hon. David Hurley AC, DSC.

As section 3 of the Australian Constitution requires that 'The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during his continuance in office,' it is pertinent that the Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024 is legislated prior to Ms Mostyn's swearing-in as Australia's 28th Governor-General next Monday. It is a longstanding practice that the Governor-General's salary is set slightly above the expected average annual salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court over the notional five-year term. The salary proposed in the bill sets a payment of $709,017 per annum for the Governor-General. The coalition will provide passage for this bill to ensure that this practice can be met.

The coalition wishes Ms Mostyn the very best in her appointment and thanks His Excellency General the Hon. David Hurley AC, DSC for his excellent service to our country.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens oppose this bill. No other worker is getting a 43 per cent pay rise in this cost-of-living crisis. In fact, wages are still flatlining and women are still underpaid. Until all women get a 43 per cent pay rise, the incoming Governor-General should not.

This is no reflection on our support or our respect for the appointment of Sam Mostyn as Governor-General. Whilst the Greens strongly believe we should be a republic, if we must have a representative of the monarch of Australia, Sam Mostyn is an inspired choice. It's wonderful to have another woman in that role and one so very strong on gender equality and financial security for women. Sam Mostyn's work with the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce was very impressive and provided many excellent recommendations to the government to actually improve women's equality. Not all of them did they listen to.

In her previous role as chair of the WEET, Sam Mostyn championed paying women more in multiple recommendations—for example, seeking to raise the wages and improve the job quality of early childhood educators, including ensuring fair remuneration, access to professional development opportunities and mechanisms for career progression; elevating the status of care work and attracting a diverse and skilled workforce by valuing and adequately compensating care workers; ensuring that minimum and award wage-setting processes take into account what would be considered an appropriate living wage for employees; and ensuring adequate government funding to support living wages, decent work and the capacity to progress and develop in careers in, for example, the early childhood education and care sectors, aged care and disability support. These recommendations strongly suggest that the government invest in a pay rise for feminised industries in recognition of the historical undervaluation of their work.

What wasn't recommended in those recommendations was an increase in the salary of the Governor-General. How can we support a $200,000 pay rise for the Governor-General, regardless of the person currently filling the role, when we're still drastically underpaying our lowest paid workers? The Greens oppose this bill, and we'll move a second reading amendment in the Senate for wage increases for all low-paid workers. We'll also move a second reading amendment in the Senate for Australia to become a republic. While previous Governor-General office holders have had their salary discounted because of their receipt of government—usually military—pensions, and the proposed salary for Ms Mostyn is in line with the convention to align it with the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court, it's still an egregiously large increase in salary. Without this bill, the incoming Governor-General will still be paid $495,000, the same as the previous male incumbent and more than all other preceding governors-general.

What planet are we living on that I'm having to stand here and point out to this Labor government that a $200,000 pay rise for the Governor-General, putting them on $700,000 a year, is absolutely callous while millions of Australians struggle to afford their groceries or pay their bills? This is not a reflection on Sam Mostyn herself, but I'm sorry; no-one needs to be paid that much. Who else is getting a 43 per cent pay rise at the moment? It's an absolute insult to people struggling with the cost of living, coming from a government that is totally out of touch with what people are facing. It aligns the Governor-General with other overpaid executives and bureaucrats on taxpayer dime. The CEOs of corporatised government services like NBN and Australia Post are paid over $2 million a year while overseeing cuts to services and bungled rollouts. The Reserve Bank governor Michele Bullock is on $1 million while she oversees interest rate rises that have caused so much pain to families across this country.

The government has its priorities all wrong. This legislation is even being rushed through parliament. If only Labor showed a similar determination for fixing the housing crisis. The Greens oppose this obscene increase in salary for the Governor-General and will continue to fight for real cost-of-living relief for all Australians.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the information of members who might have heard that last contribution, I want to outline a few facts about what is being done in this bill—something that's been passed by parliaments on average every five years with the appointment of a new Governor-General. I note that the proposed salary has been calculated by reference to the estimated average salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. That is always the starting point. Where people are in receipt of other Commonwealth streamed forms of income, such as a military pension, there has been an adjustment by the parliament in setting the figure for the five-year term. That's been consistently applied for decades.

I'd also note that this obligation is a constitutional obligation that sits upon members of parliament and has sat upon us for 123 years. It's in section 3 of the Constitution. It's an obligation that I urge all members to take seriously. I'd also note that the incoming Governor-General will only receive salary from this role, not from any military pensions. I would encourage everyone to recognise that. While some may have views about these figures, I'd be very uncomfortable breaking the longstanding convention, with reference to the Chief Justice of the High Court, that has been applied.

I don't think it's appropriate for the parliament to go towards radical change, as proposed by some, when these are matters of the deepest of conventions and also a constitutional obligation upon the parliament. I note that the member for Canning outlined in his contribution that this is a constitutional obligation under section 3. He noted the long-standing practice of this place and the Senate in supporting the proposal that the government has put forward. Indeed, I'm sure people would have been surprised if any other proposal had been brought forward. I appreciate the sensible contribution from the coalition.

I agree with the member for Ryan that Sam Mostyn is an inspired choice. It's been broadly welcomed by the Australian community, but I am disappointed that we've seen some looking for the politics on this. Had we not proposed this, I'm sure the Greens party would have come to the alternative conclusion that, somehow, we were cutting the salary of the incoming Governor-General to a level less than that of the existing Governor-General. I'll note that, on average, we have governors-general receiving a contribution equivalent to the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court.

In my final comments before we hopefully move on to the third reading, I, too, would like to thank the outgoing Governor-General the Hon. David Hurley AC, CVO, DSC (Rtd). Yesterday, in the Members Hall, we saw a great reflection of his contribution to this nation—an excellent portrait that shows his true love of this country—and we had so many people there who have been grateful for his service to this country. He's had a lifetime of service to the Australian people, and I want to thank him and, equally, Linda Hurley and all of their family for the contribution they make. Stepping into these roles is never easy, and I note that he did so after a 42-year military career and after service to the people of New South Wales as Governor. He presided as Governor-General at a time when we faced the challenges of government in the administration of COVID, we saw the sad passing of Queen Elizabeth II and we saw the coronation of King Charles III.

I also want to place on the record in this place my thanks to the staff at Government House who support the Governor-General of the day and particularly to the official secretary, Paul Singer, who has served the Governor-General so well. I want to thank all of those members of staff at Government House who enable so much of our democracy and our public administration to happen.

I commend the bill.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be read a second time. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance.

Debate adjourned.