Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024. The Greens are opposed to the bill. No other worker is getting a 43 per cent pay rise in this cost-of-living crisis. In fact, wages are still flatlined and women are still underpaid. So, until all women are getting a 43 per cent pay rise or all low-paid workers are getting a 43 per cent pay rise, the incoming Governor-General should not either.

This is no reflection on our support for the appointment of Sam Mostyn as Governor-General. Whilst the Greens strongly believe that we should cut ties with the British monarchy, establish truth-telling and treaties with First Nations people and make Australia a republic, if we must have a representative of the monarch then Sam Mostyn is an inspired choice. It's wonderful to have another woman in that role and particularly one so strong on gender equality and on financial security for women. Sam Mostyn's work with the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, WEET, was very impressive and it provided many excellent recommendations to the government to actually improve women's equality, particularly low-paid women. Unfortunately, many of those recommendations are still on the shelf gathering dust.

In her previous role as chair of the WEET, Sam Mostyn championed paying women more and lifting the minimum wage. That taskforce had many final recommendations which bear being recorded in Hansard. Recommendation 2.3 was:

Support applications in the Fair Work jurisdiction that seek to raise the wages and improve the job quality of early childhood educators. As a step to remedying historical undervaluation of educators' work, ensure that the outcomes of these cases are fully funded.

So it was to pay early childhood educators more.

Recommendation 2.5 was:

Fully implement the National Care and Support Economy Strategy and develop policies that improve care workers' wages, security and safety of their work, and recognises their work as a critical part of our society. This includes ensuring fair remuneration, access to professional development opportunities and mechanisms for career progression.

In short, it was to pay carers more.

Recommendation 2.8 was:

Elevate the status of care work and attract a diverse and skilled workforce by valuing and adequately compensating care workers, including by supporting relevant Fair Work Commission cases and committing to fund their outcomes.

Again, it was to pay carers more and actually fund an increase in pay.

Recommendation 3.5 was:

Ensure that minimum and award wage setting processes take into account what would be considered an appropriate living wage for employees.

In short, it was to lift the minimum wage.

Recommendation 3.8 was:

Ensure that government funding of sectors and services facilitates the availability of high-quality and secure work in these areas. This will mean that funding is adequate to support living wages, decent work and the capacity to progress and develop in careers, e.g., in the early-childhood education and care, aged care and disability support sectors.

Those WEET recommendations strongly suggest that the government invest in a pay rise for feminised industries in recognition of the historical undervaluation of their work. That's the sort of pay rise we should be debating now. It was not a recommendation of the WEET that the salary of the Governor-General be increased. How could we support a $200,000 pay rise of the Governor-General, regardless who it is that will fill that role, when our lowest paid workers are still being drastically underpaid? The Governor-General's salary has always been obscenely large. The current salary of $495,000 is more than enough for any one person. This is not about the merit of the incoming Governor-General whatsoever. This is the principle that in a cost-of-living crisis an archaic institutional role should not be getting an unnecessary pay rise.

The government and I believe also the opposition might say this is just about convention that previous Governors-General have had their salary discounted because of their receipt of government pensions, usually military pensions, and convention that the salary for the Governor-General aligns with that of the Chief Justice of the High Court. Well, to that I say, just because it's convention doesn't make it right. And in a cost-of-living crisis where ordinary workers haven't had a pay rise anywhere near what the government is now proposing to pay one person, it just shows that the government is badly out of touch with the community.

This is an entirely unnecessary pay rise. Without this bill, the Governor-General will still be paid $495,000, the same as for the male incumbent and still more than for any preceding Governor-General. To be clear, I think it's wonderful that we have an incoming Governor-General who didn't have to have a military background in order to be appointed to that role, and I think Sam Mostyn's previous work has led the way in terms of equality for feminised industries. We are a big fan of Sam Mostyn. What we're not a big fan of is Australia not becoming a republic, and we're not a big fan of massive pay rises when ordinary workers are not getting the same treatment.

In a cost-of-living crisis, it's hard to believe that I'm honestly having to stand here—and nobody else is going to agree with us—and this government thinks a $200,000 pay rise for the Governor-General is a great idea. This is not a reflection on Sam Mostyn, an outstanding feminist. But I'm sorry: no-one should be paid that much. Who else is getting a 43 per cent pay rise at the moment? It sure ain't women, and it sure ain't low-paid workers. Any government who thinks raising the salary of the Governor-General while people are one rent rise away from homelessness and are struggling to buy groceries is seriously out of touch with the people they are supposed to be representing.

The Greens cannot support a 43 per cent increase to the Governor-General's salary any more than we can support the overpayment of any other CEO, executive or senior public servant, especially not during a cost-of-living crisis and especially not while the lowest paid women in our workforce continue to be underpaid and undervalued. This bill would simply align the Governor-General with other overpaid executives and bureaucrats on the taxpayer dime. The CEOs of corporatised government services like the NBN and Australia Post are paid over $2 million a year whilst they oversee cuts to services and bungled rollouts. Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock is on $1 million while she oversees interest rate rises that have caused so much pain to families around the country.

The Greens oppose this bill, and we are moving a second reading amendment for wage increases to low-paid workers and also for Australia to cut ties with the British monarchy, to establish truth-telling and treaties with First Nations people and to make Australia a republic. I now move that amendment, which has been circulated in my name:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:

(a) until low paid workers receive a 43% pay rise, the Governor-General should not ; and

(b) the Government should cut ties with the British monarchy, establish truth telling and treaties with First Nations people, and make Australia a republic".

This government has its priorities all wrong. This legislation is being rushed through parliament. If only we had other legislation—maybe tackling the housing crisis, or dealing with grocery prices—being rushed through parliament; we just tried to do that, and the government voted against it. The Greens oppose this obscene increase in salary for the Governor-General, and we will continue to fight for real cost-of-living relief and for an increase to the minimum wage for low-paid workers.