There’s no polite way to describe the outrage over the new Governer-General’s ‘pay rise’ | Samantha Maiden

You can blame journalists or Labor’s inability to make an argument stick if you want, but there’s only one word to describe this “indefensible” furore, writes Samantha Maiden.

It’s a brave soldier that is prepared to run into the gunfire to defend someone earning $700,000 a year.

But if you’re interested to know why the hell the Governor-General is getting a “pay rise” of $200,000 then buckle up, your lucky day has arrived.

The reporting on this story has been problematic.

Whether you want to blame that on journalists having short memories or the inability of the Albanese Government to prosecute issues is a live question.

It’s probably a bit of both. But the upshot is that it has been widely suggested that the incoming GG Samantha Mostyn is getting a 43 per cent ‘pay rise’ on her predecessors.

And that’s simply not accurate.

There’s other words I could use to describe it, but this is a family newspaper and like many gardeners I am genuinely quite fond of mushroom compost.

It’s unfair to the incoming Governor-General and it’s misleading to readers, who have every right to know how their taxes are spent.

You may have read this week that Sam Mostyn is in line to receive a more than $200,000 pay bump compared to her predecessor and that Coalition MPs and the Greens united to blast the figure as “indefensible”.

Incoming Governor General Samantha Mostyn is not getting a pay rise. Picture: PMO

Spoiler alert: the Coalition including Peter Dutton also voted for the ‘pay rise’ in Parliament this week.

Why? Because it’s not really a pay rise at all. In fact, it reflects decades of tradition.

The remuneration of the Governor-General is set in line with past practice that dictates the head of state’s salary needs to be higher than the chief justice of the High Court’s remuneration.

Chief Justice Stephen Gageler is paid $649,880 and will receive $769,989 in five years, or $708,017 on average.

That means that when Labor introduced the legislation to replace the governor-general’s current salary it needed to bump it up to the higher figure of $709,017.

Sure, that’s an eye-watering amount. But are we really proposing that the GG gets paid less than the PM or the same as a district court judge or something? That seems stupid.

The outgoing ­Governor-General’s only received $495,000 a year. Why? Because David Hurley received a big military pension.

This is where another tradition steps in. When William Deane became GG he was eligible for a pension as a former judge and he didn’t want to be seen to double dip.

Peter Dutton was among those who voted for what’s now being inaccurately called a pay rise. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

That’s where the tradition began that if you get a government pension your salary as GG is adjusted.

So you’re actually getting a reduced rate of pay to reflect that government pension. Sam Mostyn is not getting more. She’s getting the same.

David Hurley was getting less in base salary because he was getting topped up by a military pension.

He wasn’t getting paid less than Sam Mostyn will be paid. He was getting paid the same.

Interestingly, most of the GGs we’ve had have been eligible for a government pension.

In fact, the last vice-regal representative who is in the same category as Samantha Mostyn was Peter Hollingworth.

Former governor-general Peter Cosgrove was paid $425,000 a year as GG when he came into office in 2014.

Quentin Bryce was paid $394,000, an increase from $365,000 when former senior army officer Michael Jeffery assumed the office.

That sum reflected her government pension too.

And if you don’t believe me, try listening to the former governor-general Peter Cosgrove, who also noted that the salary was set by the parliament based on the “yardstick” of the chief justice of the High Court’s salary.

“It sounds like a hell of a jump, but it’s almost actuarial in nature,” Mr Cosgrove said.

“So whereas the Remuneration Tribunal, according to its own program, will revisit what the justices of the High Court get – which includes the chief justice – the parliament as a practice does not revisit the salary of the governor-general over the expected five years or so.”

The Governor-General is appointed by His Majesty The King on the advice and recommendation of the Prime Minister and under the provisions of the letters patent relating to the office.

When Governor-General David Hurley was sworn in as Governor-General in June 2019 the same rules applied.

“It has been long standing practice to set the Governor-General’s salary by reference to that of the Chief Justice of the High Court,’’ Parliament was told at the time in the second reading speech to finalise his salary.

“The proposed salary is based on a forecast of the Chief Justice’s salary over the next five years using wages growth projections. I note that the Chief Justice’s salary is determined annually by the Remuneration Tribunal, a body that is independent of the government.

“In setting an appropriate salary, the Governor-General Designate requested that regard be given to the Commonwealth funded military pension he will be entitled to receive during his term in office.

“This is consistent with precedent established by Sir William Deane in 1995 and continued most recently by General Cosgrove.

“The proposed salary of $495,000 per annum reflects a reduction by the amount of General Hurley’s military pension.”

In other words, the Governor-General David Hurley got the same deal that Samantha Mostyn is getting.

Not less and not more.

Originally published as There’s no polite way to describe the outrage over the new Governer-General’s ‘pay rise’ | Samantha Maiden