Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

This bill will set the salary of the next Governor-General.

It amends the Governor-General Act 1974.

The Governor-General is appointed by His Majesty The King.

This is on the advice and recommendation of the Prime Minister and under the provisions of the Letters Patent relating to the Office of the Governor-General.

On 3 April 2024, the Prime Minister announced that The King had approved his recommendation to appoint Ms Samantha Mostyn AC as our next Governor-General.

This follows the conclusion of the term of His Excellency General the Honourable David Hurley AC DSC (Retired) as Governor-General.

Ms Mostyn will be sworn in as Governor-General on 1 July 2024.

Section 3 of the Constitution prevents the Governor-General's salary from being altered during their term of office.

As such, it is necessary to set the next Governor-General's salary at a level appropriate for the duration of this term.

Although the Governor-General serves at The King's pleasure, it is usual to serve for approximately five years.

Accordingly, it is necessary to set the next Governor-General's salary at a level appropriate for the duration of this term.

In line with past practice, the proposed salary is calculated by reference to the estimated average salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia over the notional five-year term of the appointment of the Governor-General.

Where, in the past, a Governor-General has been the recipient of other Commonwealth entitlements—such as a military pension—the annual salary has been adjusted accordingly.

Ms Mostyn is not a recipient of any such entitlements.

The Chief Justice's salary is determined annually by the Remuneration Tribunal, an independent statutory authority.

The Parliament must pass this Bill before the commencement of Ms Mostyn's term.

Section three of the Constitution provides:

The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during the continuance in office.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) 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 from 1 July 2024, following on from the announced retirement of His Excellency General the Hon. David Hurley. Section 3 of chapter 1 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 was legislated prior to Ms Mostyn's swearing in as Australia's 28th Governor-General next Monday. It's 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 coalition will provide passage for this bill to ensure that this practice can be met.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024 is yet another display of poor judgement from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. To increase the salary of the Governor-General by 43 per cent in a cost-of-living crisis is an insult to everyday Australians who are struggling with the Albanese government's cost-of-living crisis.

The salary of the Governor-General is fixed for the period of her term, so the rise by $214,000 dollars to a new salary of $709,000 is the only increase in the next five years. A 43 per cent pay rise suggests that the government knows inflation is going to get much worse. Not only will Ms Mostyn be earning $709,000 but the role also includes two homes: Government House in Yarralumla and Admiralty House in Kirribilli, right on Sydney Harbour. The role includes free travel, free food, servants and a pool. The Governor-General receives a pension which is legislated at 60 per cent of salary or $425,000 for life—not a bad pension.

The appointment of Ms Mostyn is a controversial choice. The tradition for 124 years has been to select our Governor-General from the ranks of the judiciary, the military, state governors and senior politicians. This reflects the skill set a governor-general needs to lead the Australian people in a time of civil crisis or war. The Governor-General is, of course, commander of Australia's armed forces; the Prime Minister is not the commander of Australia's armed forces. Ms Mostyn comes to the role with a background in activism. It's an appointment which may serve to politicise the role of the Governor-General, and that's sad to see.

The Commonwealth of Australia deserves more respect than the Prime Minister has shown with this appointment and with this obscene pay rise. One Nation opposes this bill.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to 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.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to sum up the debate on the Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024. This bill continues a longstanding convention under successive governments that has been applied to the appointment of successive Governors-General. The practice has been to set the salary of the Governor-General by reference to the average salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court over the next five years. It has also been the practice that the salary of the Governor-General is adjusted to take into account any government funded pension that they may receive. This bill faithfully applies these precedents.

As my colleague the Minister for Women has noted, the Greens have circulated a second reading amendment. The government will be opposing this amendment. It contains a fundamental and consequential mistruth. The Governor-General is not receiving a 43 per cent pay increase. It is surprising that the Greens political party are suggesting that a female Governor-General should receive a lower salary than her male predecessor because she is not in receipt of a military pension. The argument made by the Greens is both disappointing and irresponsible.

I make the more general point that this is a narrow bill that is drafted to achieve a narrow legislative outcome and there are other opportunities to debate the other issues raised by the Greens in their amendment. The Greens amendment will do nothing to advance the pay of working people, nothing to progress a republic and nothing to progress towards truth-telling and reconciliation but would prevent the government from undertaking a constitutional obligation. So we won't be supporting their amendment. More generally I commend bill to the Senate and thank the senators for their contributions.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is now that the bill be read a second time.

The Senate divided. [10:31]

(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Allman-Payne)