Posts

Government Miscalculates Governor General’s Salary

,

This Government is spending money recklessly, treating it as if it were mere monopoly money. This is partly because of their reliance on career bureaucrats for advice, individuals who have enjoyed very high incomes within the Canberra bubble for so long that money has lost its value to them.

They are probably surprised by the public’s outraged reaction to their decision to raise the Governor General’s salary from $495,000 to $719,000.

Such a large salary increase in the middle of a cost of living crisis showed a severe lack of awareness. Canberra bureaucrats aren’t experiencing the cost of living pain felt by the broader population, as they are insulated by their excessively hire salaries.

Rather than meeting the public outcry with a mea culpa and reducing the salary, Minister Gallagher huffed and puffed. She failed to grasp simple maths (an increase from $495,000 to $719,000 is a 43.2% rise), conflagrated the situation by raising the previous Governor General’s military pension and then accused me of misleading Parliament.

In truth, the Government and their bureaucrats were just looking after a mate and got called out for it.

Transcript

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. 

Transcript

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Minister, if a salary rises from $495,000 to $719,000, what percentage increase is that? 

Senator Gallagher: I’m not sure under which part of the portfolio this comes, but I think it relates to the Governor-General’s salary and the bill that this Senate passed this morning. The point I was making there was that it is misleading to suggest that a salary is increasing from the figure that you have used, Senator Roberts, to that high figure, because what it does not take into account is the other income streams that were available to former Governors-General. So this is an adjustment, yes, but it’s an adjustment being made because the incoming Governor-General does not have a military pension that will supplement the income stream and because the Governor-General’s salary has been traditionally linked to the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court. That salary is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. 

I think the point you were making this morning in debate and the point that Senator Waters, surprisingly, was making in debate was this was some significant pay increase in the order of 43 per cent, when that is not correct. Former Governors-Generals have had two income streams, particularly if they’ve been in receipt of a pension. This legislation we passed today was to ensure that a commensurate salary be provided for an incoming Governor-General who only has one income stream. So it is not accurate to say that a position has had an increase of that order. It is simply not correct. It is misleading, it is disingenuous and it’s seeking a popular headline, which I agree is easy to get if people don’t understand the detail that underpins that decision. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The answer is 43.2 per cent. Governor-General Jeffery’s salary was $365,000. Quentin Bryce, Labor’s last appointment, was paid $394,000, $20,000 less than the then salary of the High Court Chief Justice. General Cosgrove was paid $425,000, and then General Hurley was paid $495,000. Minister, how much was outgoing Governor-General Hurley’s salary reduced for his military pension? 

Senator Gallagher: I don’t have those figures at hand, but I do understand that the salary that has been agreed to and passed by this chamber this morning and by the House earlier in the week is in line with the salary that the current Governor-General has been earning with the income streams available to him. It might be slightly adjusted for the fact that it lasts over five years, because, once the Governor-General commences in the role, no further adjustments can be made to salary. But it is in line with what His Excellency Governor-General Hurley is earning at this point in time. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The incoming Governor-General’s salary is now $70,000 above the High Court Chief Justice’s salary. The Chief Justice gets, as you said, periodic increases to adjust for inflation. The Governor-General does not. Noting that today’s inflation announcement shows inflation increasing again, this huge pay rise seems designed to compensate Sam Mostyn for inflation and has nothing to do with military pensions. Minister, earlier today, did you mislead the Senate to cover up the real reason for this huge pay increase, surging inflation? 

Senator Gallagher: I can assure Senator Roberts that, no, I did not mislead the parliament and I have been clear—indeed, I was clear in the last answer that I gave—that there is some adjustment for future increases based on the fact that the Chief Justice has a salary determined annually by the Remuneration Tribunal. The Governor-General’s salary cannot be increased by that, so there is work done, based on some analysis about what that should appropriately be. But, no, it’s not based on today’s inflation forecast, and it’s incorrect to continue to say that it has nothing to do with the fact that His Excellency currently is in receipt of a military pension in addition to the salary that he draws as Governor-General. The simple reality is that the legislation that passed this chamber addresses the fact that there is one income stream, and this allows them to be paid in accordance with what’s currently being paid. 

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today regarding the incoming Governor-General’s salary. 

Since 1974 the parliament has approved the salary for each incoming Governor-General. The salary level has conventionally been commensurate with that of the Chief Justice of the High Court. The last time a Governor-General was paid less than the Chief Justice was in 2008, when Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd appointed Quentin Bryce with a salary $20,000 less than that of the Chief Justice. Precedent does call for consideration to be ‘given to any pension received by the incumbent for previous employment’—for the incumbent, not for the person coming after the incumbent. 

The annual salary during Michael Jeffery’s term was $365,000. Quentin Bryce’s salary was $394,000. General Peter Cosgrove was paid $425,000, which included a small reduction because of his military pension. General Hurley was paid $495,000. General Hurley is in receipt of a military pension as a result of his lifetime of military service. Sam Mostyn is not entitled to a military pension for her lifetime of service to the culture wars. The huge increase offered to Sam Mostyn takes her salary to $70,000 above that of the High Court Chief Justice, despite Labor themselves setting a precedent that less can be paid in hard times, such as in 2008, during the global financial crisis. 

In 2024 we have the crisis of the Albanese government’s runaway inflation. The inflation rate has increased again to four per cent, announced a few moments ago. This persistent high inflation gives a hint as to why the incoming Governor-General got such a large wage rise. The government knows what bad economic news is coming for everyday Australians in the next five years and sought to insulate its appointment from that ruinous inflation. This Labor government simply doesn’t know the value of money and is clearly confused when the public call the government out for it. Sam Mostyn has got a huge increase in salary. Her pension is now hugely increased, and she will have that pension for every day of every year of her life. 

Question agreed to. 

/2 Comments/by

Inconvenient EVs in Canberra Subsidised by Taxpayers!

,

In Senate Estimates I asked who funded and supplied the electric vehicle charging stations (58 in total) at Parliament House in the Capital. Taxpayers are funding the Canberra bubble’s fling with EVs to the tune of $2.5m in installation costs, with the vague promise that this will be recouped in the future. The reason given for the charging stations is to make it convenient for EVs to visit Parliament House. Despite most Australians owning a petrol or diesel car, there are no immediate plans to install petrol or diesel pumps at Parliament House for their convenience.

As the city with the highest average income in the country (over $100,000/year), the Canberra bureaucrats are truly out of touch with the rest of Australia.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for appearing today. The Department of Parliamentary Services has installed 10 electric vehicle charging stations in the public car park. Are they user-pays, or does the ‘Department of the Australian Taxpayer’ fork out for the cost of that electricity?

Mr Stefanic: The user pays.

Senator ROBERTS: Which company owns the chargers, then?

Mr Stefanic: I’ll have to take that question on notice. I’ll correct myself if I have misspoken, but I believe DPS owns the asset that has been installed. We contracted ActewAGL to provide the services with the installation.

Senator ROBERTS: AGL?

Mr Stefanic: ActewAGL, which is a Canberra based joint venture with AGL.

Senator ROBERTS: But DPS owns the chargers?

Mr Stefanic: I believe so.

Senator ROBERTS: How much did you pay for the installation?

Mr Stefanic: The contract for installation is about $2.5 million. We are tracking under budget. When all 58 electric vehicle charging stations are installed we anticipate the cost will be in the order—

Senator ROBERTS: Fifty-eight?

Mr Stefanic: There will be 58 in total. There are 10 in the public car park, 10 in each of the private car parks and eight in the ministerial wing.

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, what was that again?

Mr Stefanic: Ten in each of the private car parks and eight in the ministerial wing car park.

Senator ROBERTS: How many private car parks?

Mr Stefanic: Four.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve got 40 chargers?

Mr Stefanic: Forty in those. Then the 10 in the public and the eight in the ministerial wing make 58.

Senator ROBERTS: So we’re paying for this, but a provider of electricity is making money out of it?

Mr Stefanic: The charges that we are levying for it have two elements: one covers both our administration cost and a recovery of the capital investment, and the other portion of it is the payment for the cost of the energy that goes to the provider.

Senator ROBERTS: So the provider is making a profit out of our—the taxpayers—investment?

Mr Stefanic: The energy provider, as it would for any electric vehicle charging station.

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t realise that it was within your remit to cover the operating costs of people driving electric vehicles around the Canberra bubble?

Mr Stefanic: It’s not, because it is user-pays, as I mentioned.

Senator ROBERTS: But you’re providing a lot of taxpayer money to enable it.

Mr Stefanic: With the take-up of electric vehicles—and Canberra has, I think, the highest per capita take-up in the country—the range of those vehicles, I guess, necessitates us to lean into the issue and make sure we have availability for charging locally. To the point that Senator Hume raised around people being able to leave the building, sometimes it’s difficult, and having the convenience of a charging facility available at Parliament House is useful. In the public car park in particular, we have around 800,000 visitors a year to Parliament House. With the increase in the take-up of electric vehicles, it enhances our destination from a tourism point of view if people can see that they have access to electric vehicle charging when they arrive here.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re acknowledging that electric vehicles have some inconvenience attached to them, so you’re making provision to supplement that?

Mr Stefanic: No. I’m simply saying it’s a reality. There are electric vehicle charging stations popping up everywhere. We’re simply another building that’s installing them.

Senator ROBERTS: Subsidised by the taxpayer.

Mr Stefanic: They are not subsidised by the taxpayer because we are recovering that capital cost.

Senator ROBERTS: The installation is subsidised but then you recover, which is a pretty good deal for the providers.

Mr Stefanic: We use our capital funds to install the infrastructure, but then we recover the cost from the user.

Senator ROBERTS: How are your plans to install a diesel or petrol bowser progressing?

Mr Stefanic: There are no plans for fuel bowsers.

Senator ROBERTS: Why not?

Mr Stefanic: You need a storage mechanism for those things. So it would be difficult to begin with, given the building, to dig massive holes in the ground to put in storage facilities.

CHAIR: No hydrogen plant then either?

Mr Stefanic: No.

Senator Shoebridge: Next we’ll all get nuclear reactors.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it because diesel and petrol are easier to refuel? You’re saying it’s an inconvenience to use an electric car, so we need to provide services for electric cars so we can make sure we have plenty of visitors to Parliament House?

The President: If I could just correct the record—the department secretary didn’t say it was inconvenient to use an electric vehicle.

Senator ROBERTS: He didn’t use those words; he used other words. Are you aware that electric vehicle sales in the United States and the European Union are plummeting?

Mr Stefanic: No. I’m simply looking at statistics in Australia and in the ACT in particular, which indicate that the take up continues to grow.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s interesting because electric vehicles are inherently much more expensive than diesel and petrol and less efficient overall in use of resources. Canberra has the highest income per capita, as I understand it, of any city in Australia.

Mr Stefanic: I’m unsure of that.

/7 Comments/by

The Bureaucrats are Out of Touch and Out of Control

,

The public servants in the Canberra bureaucracy are meant to be impartial. Being impartial would mean they only comment on their ability to carry out laws, not whether they agree with policies ideologically. What we see again and again is that the bureaucrats are not impartial. They make submissions that support the woke policies of the Canberra elite, like net-zero.

I asked the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC), who are meant to be the enforcers of the code of impartiality, about one particularly bad example where an agency endorsed the government’s net-zero ideas. Their response? “Well that’s just your opinion.”

The Canberra public service and their referee are so out of touch with everyday Australians that they can’t even comprehend the question. It’s easy to see why Canberra was the only state or territory in all of Australia to vote Yes on the Voice.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. The Australian Public Service works under or in accord with the code of conduct. Is that correct?

Dr de Brouwer: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: How does that work in practice? I know that is a broad question.

Ms Talbot: As we alluded to earlier in our evidence, we have the APS Code of Conduct, and that sets out the standards and, I guess, the expectations on all public servants. In particular, the Public Service Act is quite clear around articulating what the APS values are and how they apply to all public servants. I can go into more detail around the code of conduct requirements if you wish.

Senator ROBERTS: Basically, the code drives behaviour or indicates the behaviour or values that are appropriate.

Ms Talbot: It sets out what the appropriate behaviours are, what the appropriate expected standards of conduct are, and it does outline the APS values and goes into some detail about those values.

Senator ROBERTS: So it is broad not specific because it doesn’t apply to just one department or one agency? It’s very broad.

Ms Talbot: It applies to everyone, but sitting underneath that there is quite a detailed document, and in particular sitting under the Public Service Act there are also commissioner’s directions, which go into more detail as well around how everything actually applies.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you elaborate on the Australian Public Service value of impartiality, specifically how the Public Service should be interpreting it practically in making submissions to inquiries?

Ms Talbot: Is there some specific inquiry?

Senator ROBERTS: My concern is that it seems some agencies aren’t being fully impartial in making submissions, especially in the area of climate policy, for example. This is dangerous because it leads to group think. My interpretation of the value of impartiality is that if an agency or department is making a submission on, for example, a law change, that submission should be limited to the agency’s ability to carry out the policy change. That might mean resource considerations and practical issues of whether they can enforce a policy. Is that what you would be expecting in a submission that meets those values of impartiality, rather than making a submission in favour of or against a policy on the basis of political aspects?

Ms Talbot: What I can say is that the guidance around impartiality is reminding public servants that in conducting their duties they are to be apolitical and they are obviously not to be biased in the way in which they conduct their duties. I think you’re asking me more for an opinion around a particular instance that you have in mind.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned about several instances. It seems we have some agencies and departments making submissions that endorse the policies being put forward from an ideological standpoint, not only commenting on the practicalities of implementing the policy for that agency or department, as I said. For example, the Australian Energy Regulator made a submission to the national energy laws amendment bill. In that submission they endorsed the net zero policy setting of the government and said they support it, which doesn’t seem to be impartial. Shouldn’t they only be commenting on their ability to implement the changes, not endorsing the policy driving the changes?

Dr de Brouwer: The requirement of impartiality, as Ms Talbot outlined, is that the APS is apolitical. But it also provides advice—and I will quote from section 10(5) of the act—’that is frank, honest, timely and based on the best available evidence’. This is within the CER’s view of what is the best available evidence, what is coherent with that and what is required to achieve that.

Senator ROBERTS: So they would be informed by scientific evidence, would they?

Dr de Brouwer: That is what I think the CER will say. You should ask them.

Senator ROBERTS: You are smiling.

Dr de Brouwer: We used to deal with this in estimates 10 years ago.

Senator ROBERTS: Net zero policy is within climate policy. That’s subject to a lot of contention in the public, so supporting that would seem to me not to be upholding impartiality, especially when there have been no logical scientific points, including empirical scientific evidence, to back up net zero anyway in the world. They failed the science test, so surely they are acting partially?

Dr de Brouwer: I think that is your view, Senator Roberts, and it is up to that authority to explain how it views the evidence and provide the explanation to you of why it’s acting impartially.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.

/10 Comments/by

Why I’m going to Canberra this week

I’ve made the decision to attend Senate sitting tomorrow in Canberra.

I have driven from home and camped at Myall Lakes last night in NSW on the way down to limit contact with others.

It will be a shortened sitting week to pass essential Bills and the stimulus package.

While I could have not attended, I have chosen to keep an eye on the Liberals and Labor to make sure they don’t try any funny business.

That is what you voted me to do.

TRANSCRIPT

Hi. We’re on our way to Canberra by road. We’re driving down from Brisbane for a sitting of Parliament, Lower House, House of Representatives and the Senate, with vastly reduced numbers.

We’re doing that for health reasons, because of the health risk of coronavirus. We need to meet to pass essential legislation for keeping the government running, the country running, and especially to pass the stimulus package.

We’re having minimal staff in Canberra with us, because we wanna minimise the health risk. Why am I going to Canberra? Very simple. I don’t trust either of the tired old parties, the Labour Party and Liberal Party.

I wanna make sure that the legislation they pass, doesn’t include some sneaky little hook for the Australian people. On our way down yesterday, I camped out at the Myall Lakes, which is been a favourite spot of mine since I was a child.

And, I made sure I stayed in isolation from people. It’s very, very important to stay safe, be hygienic, keep isolated, keep a safe distance from people, because this really is serious. Very challenging times.

We need to co-operate with each other, and care for each other. We also need to rely on the government, but to not let them get away with anything. We’ve gotta keep, we’ve elected them, they need to get on with the job.

They need some authority to get on with the job, and protecting the people, which is their number one responsibility. But, we need to make sure that we keep an eye on them, to make sure that we hold them accountable.

We need to provide oversight. So, during this whole time, rely on the government, let it go, let it do it’s job, but hold them accountable.

/by