Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Hansard source

I want to make a couple of comments on the Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024 because I think there has been a fundamental misrepresentation from the Greens and from One Nation about what is happening here. If you accept the Greens political party's point that this is a 43 per cent pay increase, and if the Senate agrees with that—which it won't today—that means that the incoming Governor-General should work for half of what the current Governor-General is working for. That is the position—

Yes, it is, Senator Waters, so don't come in here and say that there's a 43 per cent pay increase happening when you know from the briefing that has been provided to you that the former Governor-General was in receipt of military pension in addition to his salary. He had his salary and a military pension, which equalled, on average, what is being reflected for the incoming Governor-General. So you are asking the incoming Governor-General, in that very important position, to work for half of what the former Governor-General is being paid.

It has been the longstanding practice in this chamber, including being agreed to by the Greens political party, that the salary of the Governor-General is linked to the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court. That salary is set by the independent Remuneration Tribunal on a yearly basis. Because the Constitution requires the salary of the Governor-General to be set by the parliament, we have used that position in order to reflect the appropriate salary for the incoming Governor-General at the level that has been set, reflecting past practice.

So I find it absolutely incredible that the Greens political party, which is all about ensuring that people are paid properly for the work that they do, would then come in here and try to argue a populist point—which, I accept, will get a headline. Well done! Congratulations! But you are arguing, on principle, that the incoming Governor-General of Australia should get half, or 43 per cent less, than the current Governor-General, only because she is not in receipt of a military pension. That is what you are arguing for today.

On the broader point about appropriate wages for low-paid workers in this country, I agree that more has to be done, but you will not have seen a government in this place that has done more in two years to lift the wages of low-paid workers and continue to advocate, in particular, for feminised industries. The Fair Work Commission now has forecast—because of the changes this place has made and the policies of this government to put in place, essentially, gender analysis of the minimum wage for those industries which are highly feminised. That work is underway. In the meantime, aged-care workers have had a pay rise. The budget makes a provision for early childhood education and care workers. We are focused on ensuring that women get a fair crack at not only employment opportunities but also appropriate wages.

Again, you will not see a government that has done more in two years, and will continue to do more, than this government. To then conflate that with the traditional mechanism for setting the Governor-General's wages is a complete misrepresentation. Good luck with the headlines that you will get that you're advocating for this. But, at the same time you're advocating for it, explain why you think that the incoming Governor-General deserves 43 per cent less than the current Governor-General or 43 per cent less than the Chief Justice of the High Court. It is an outrageous position. I cannot believe it's being argued in this chamber, and it should not be supported.