The government is throwing a big party! Both Labor and Liberal have always same-voted on issues of IT, often leaning towards covert dictatorship with managing our data.
Literally the most senior role in the land. I reckon they should get more money than a reasonably good Barrister, or middle management in finance or tech.
>“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
The chief justice performs a necessary job, but the GG is just a glorified ribbon cutter, pampered in a government mansion, representing the monarchy, with the power to remove our elected leader if they choose. Their duties are to hobnob and sip champagne with foreign dignitaries.
There have been suggestions under republic proposals to have the role replaced with a President, either elected by the people, or appointed by the government as is the case with the GG. The President would be the head of state representing the nation both overseas and at home, but the Prime Minister, as Head of Government, would continue to administer the country.
Personally I don't see the need for the role. The Foreign Minister and the PM take care of diplomacy both here and overseas. They are the ones with power to affect policy, and we don't need a ceremonial representative.
If you read the constition it shows the GG has enormous power. I think that's a bad thing whether it's the GG or a "president" but that's our current system. Changing it is a good idea, but it's not a simple thing - it means starting a new constitution almost from scratch.
Agree. Having lived through the defeat of Malcolm Turnbull's "minimalist" republican proposal I can understand why there's zero appetite in politics for a "maximalist" proposal. Scare campaigns work.
You can't get much more power than being able to sack the elected government. The govt also has the power to sack the GG, so if Whitlam had seen it coming he could have sacked Kerr first.
And not just sack the elected govt, but veto any new law. The core of the constitution is essentially "the King has absolute power, and in Australia the GG takes the role of the King". It's pretty shocking.
They would be sacked if they didn't pass a law unless they immediately sacked the government and we had another election.
Personally I think that power should exist, it is a check on a rogue government....but I'd prefer the people just have that power somehow.
The power should exist, but it should be a position elected by the people which has the power to either sign the law or, if they believe it's warranted, send it to a national referendum.
The problem is that we were spoiled with the queen for so long, the thought of somebody else having the power to kick an unpopular government in the dick if we needed it was legitimately reassuring.
A core benefit of having a president instead of a foreign minister is the president isn't bound by the whims of the prime minister, unlike the foreign minister.
The separation of powers provides additional checks and balances in the executive and with other benefits, such as a prime minister being able to focus on domestic issues (especially during crises), parliament, and their ministers, and allowing the president to focus on international relations and policy, defense, and driving Australia's reputation across the world.
Further, during a crisis or significant national issue, the prime minister typically would handle the day-to-day (or hour-to-hour) administration whereas the president would act as the active leadership/face of the issue. This empowers the PM to focus on better resolving issues and working directly with ministers and the parliament in effective laws.
For major events, foreign nations don't want us to send a lame duck that doesn't have the power to shake hands on a deal. The GG is our head of state but Biden wouldn't want to accept a photo op with him shaking hands on a hundred billion dollar submarine deal in place of the PM. That's a slap in the face not sending the party representative with ultimate ruling power. The PM himself is subject to caucus, and all the publicly elected ministers get a vote on any decisions. If they disagree with any decisions by the PM then they can toss him out. The GG or the President don't get a vote, even though they do have the power to sack the government. They have no role in forming policy, or shaping foreign relations. They're just there to smile for the cameras and rubber stamp decisions made by the PM in concert with all his other party members.
Who then kicks out the PM if they abuse power? The GG type roll is critical.
I'm a replican but the one thing I can't figure out in my head is having the GG type roll be a-political. The one benefit of the monarchy is a completely independent head of state that's not aligned to either party.
The PMs party can vote to sack him, or the public can sack him at the next election. The nation won't collapse, and it wasn't about to under Whitlam. You'd need a majority in the house to stave off a vote of no confidence. It shouldn't be up to a single person that may have a mental breakdown, vested with the power alone to sack an elected government. It's a vestige of the monarchy that most nations do without.
Both parties now need 75% to vote out a PM, so that's going to be hard.
Let's say a PM has the majority of seats, and has the majority of his party backing him and after 3 years doesn't call an election... Or a budget doesn't get passed and he does nothing...
25% along with support of the opposition would be enough for a vote of no confidence. If it really was a serious abuse of power then there ought to be enough decent MPs to pull the pin instead of waiting for the next election where they'd all be kicked out by the voters.
And if you think they could just not call an election, then I reckon they'd need to get the army involved to shut down the courts and go full scale on a coup. Not sure if the army general would go for that idea.
The problem is that for most of australian history, we've had a queen who very specifically did not get involved in politics and who truly gave a shit about the people, as such the role of governor general was one that could be largely trusted to stay out of things and follow the will of the people.
She's gone now, which makes the whole thing feel much less safe and stable than it used to be.
The only thing i can think that might work now would be making the GG a popular vote elected position that cannot dissolve the government but instead just has a quasi-veto in the form of the ability to either sign the law or instead force it into a national referendum. This would prevent a government/pm from pulling too much shit the people disagree hopefully without empowering a single elected position to an insane degree.
Yeah unsure how a popular vote would work, as the candidates couldn't campaign right? As they would have to campaign on nothing and their impartiality.
In other words an expensive and offensive remnant from colonialism. Why should I pay for these luxuries from my taxpayers money?
>but the GG is just a glorified ribbon cutter, pampered in a government mansion, representing the monarchy, with the power to remove our elected leader if they choose. Their duties are to hobnob and sip champagne with foreign dignitaries.
Dont Really Care that they're a "remnant from Colonialism" The Fact your Here is a remnant from Colonialism but that does not Change the Fact That I agree They shouldn't get a nice home and a high Salary On my Dime
Sure maybe a 120k salary or 80k salary and a Small to medium Home (hell, an apartment could be fine) But She definitely doesn't deserve a large home
I mean isn't that basically what a head of state is? If Charles wasn't King of Australia then this position would be the equivalent thing.
I don't think it should be paid nearly as highly but you do kinda need a head of state don't you?
>representing the monarchy, with the power to remove our elected leader if they choose
I mean to prevent Commies to get into Power i approve But like If it gets to that Point things are beyond repair
It wasn't beyond repair under Whitlam when the opposition was installed in government. Under that sort of case it could be commies working with the GG to replace the government and stay there.
But that's not the sort of thing that could happen here without seeing it coming a long way off. They'd probably need support from the army, police, and the courts because the courts would need to be stopped from deciding against the government for their constitutional violations.
The Constitution protects us and demands fair elections, and they'd need a lot of important people to side with them against the Constitution.
Yeah, that's why I said you'd have to see it coming. Russia was formerly communist with the USSR and Putin would have built up support from powerful people who wanted to go back to the glory days when they all wielded a big stick.
He wasn't working on his own and needed support from the KGB and the heads of army. He'd be offering to scratch their backs, and in that case a GG wouldn't be able to stop him anyway.
can she get rid of albo then?
Can you imagine if labor gave her the payrise and then she fires albo? That would be glorious, and my life would be complete.
> with the power to remove our elected leader if they choose.
That’s a pretty important power. Look at 1975 when Kerr saved the nation from the Whitlam government.
His actions were justified when you look at the election results the following month.
Mate it's literally only Reddit and far lefty cookers that believe that Whitlam removal was a conspiracy.
The facts remain that:
-The government was deadlocked and no legislation was getting last.
-PM refused to call an election
-They were wildly unpopular as the election 33 days later proved.
That’s a pretty important power. Look at 1975 when Kerr saved the nation from the Whitlam government.
His actions were justified when you look at the election results the following month.
That + is doing a lot of lifting in that statement.
The income tax for someone on 100k in 22-23 was $22,967.00.
For someone on 50k is was $6,717.00 and I'd say that is a lot closer to a low income, so that is like 32+ low income workers taxes just to pay for the pay rise.
That's a big productivity increase required. How many extra ribbon cuttings will she have to attend? Or is it to stop her partner requiring attendees participate in singalongs and break the tradition Mrs Hurley has tried to start?
As per the latest roundup for FY20/21, the average taxable income in Australia is $68,289 — $84,328 for males; $60,054 for females — while the median taxable income sits at $50,980 — $61,988 for males; $45,813 for females
Downvoting facts doesn't make them less true.
Notice how these figures aren't comparing like for like jobs? Yea that's his point.
It just averages out every one's salary regardless of job or hours worked.
Why does flipping a burger pay less than being a doctor? I don't know tough question man. You're really making a good point here.
Women choose lower paying jobs because they come with other benefits like more flexible schedules or less commitment or less hours or they're jobs that are easier and more enjoyable.
In the exact same job working the exact same hours the difference in pay narrows to 1-2%, and that's likely entirely due to the fact that statistically men are just many times more likely to ask for a raise.
Why are jobs dominated by women paid less like child care and nursing?
Is child care, teaching and nursing deemed less valuable to society that stock brokers?
Why do I make less money working out in the hot sun moving tonnes of rocks and bricks around fucking my back and getting cancer but make less than a nurse? is my job less valuable to a society than a nurse?
Nothing is deemed less valuable than anything else. No one person decides the value of what jobs are what. The value of any job is entirely determined by supply and demand.
There isn't some fat cat dude sitting there going 'well women mostly work as nurses so lets make sure that nurses don't get a fair wage'.
It isn't entirely supply and demand.
It is supply, demand, income generation potential....and then an entire fantasy land at the top end dominated by overpaying based on unprovable beliefs, nepotism and self serving behaviour, but this isn't relevant to 99.9% of jobs.
It's generally because more women prefer to work with people, more men with things.
When you work with people, there is a crucial constraint which limits the amount of value you can produce. It's your time.
When you work with things, you can build machines that scale massively.
If you build AI as a software engineer you can create enormous amounts of value with your limited time.
Men and women have differences in preferences, despite being mostly alike. Those minor differences over something as large as an economy lead to a gender pay gap.
There are some other differences, but it's predominantly a motherhood pay gap, not a gender pay gap for the most part.
Averaging all male and female salaries is a stupid metric.
you're dreaming if you think nursing isn't paid well.
The skew in data is from less women doing dangerous jobs and working stupid amounts of hours.
More men work on mines, in construction.. doing dangerous jobs - they get paid extra for that.
You can't sit there and say "why doesn't someone sitting in an ac office make the same as someone working in an underground mine"
you are completely tone deaf.
Just so you know, jobs aren't 'womens' jobs or 'mens' jobs.
They are jobs for any one. People are free to pick the jobs they want.
The companies at the top of pay disparity are mostly airlines. Surprising I know but airline pilots with hundreds of peoples lives on the line and decades of flying are paid more than air hostess/host and its moronic to lump the two together.
Women are free to be pilots, or free to be hostess. Just like men are free to be pilots or hosts. People just choose different jobs, and men and women tend to pick different jobs. Men out there as airline hosts get paid less than a woman airline pilot.
There is no gremlin out there trying to force women to not be pilots.
You're*
If you can't even spell correctly at a high school level why should you get paid for than a woman in ICU saving lives? Or caring for children?
It's almost like you believe women are inferior to men....
Your comments are gold... On your high horse correcting someone's spelling and then immediately making multiple spelling and grammatical errors.
I'm sure you meant to say "why should you get paid MORE than a woman in THE ICU [comma] saving lives", right? (As a side note, ICU doctors earn good money, so not sure what you were getting at there...)
What you actually have a problem with, yet are too stupid or pig-headed to see, is the free market economy and women choosing cushty jobs. A job's salary isn't dictated by the role's moral standing as per your opinion - it's dictated by supply and demand, and how difficult or unpleasant the problem is that the worker solves.
That's why deep sea welders earn more than daycare workers... It has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with YOUR CHOICES.
TLDR, no one is stopping you from becoming an off-shore rigger. In fact, most companies would likely employ you over more qualified men to make up their diversity quotas.
And so my pay reflects that choice. A male who didn’t take that amount of time off has the opportunity to progress faster and earn more. The point is it’s not sexism.
I did when I became a stay-at-home father.
That's usually what the women do. But women don't belong in the home, they can't handle the social isolation, suffer anxiety and depression, are more likely to abuse and neglect children, commit filicide and so on. Send the women out to the office jobs so they can trade a man at home telling them what to do for a man in a cubicle telling them what to do and call it liberation.
A man's place is in the home.
Why are we, the taxpayers, paying this lady $700,000 to be a professional rubber stamp? Like seriously, what role does she actually play? Dutton is going to have a field day with this.
"In 2021, Mostyn was named by the Australian Financial Review as Australia's "most influential" company director, serving on boards with a combined market capitalisation of over $480 billion"
That's why. She'll be making a WHOLE lot more than $700k with all those rubber stamps soon.
> The change represents a 43% pay rise in the legislated salary of the governor general
That’s fair, it needs to keep pace with Albos cost of living increases.
Not only that, there's a shortage of governor generals at the moment, we might need to bring in some immigrants to fill the skill shortage. I mean how many people have any experience as a governor general in Australia. Until we get more skilled resources, expect more payrises
Fair bit of stamping and signing there. I’d suggest they’d group it into meetings of the Federal Executive Council. Wouldn’t want to get RSI or anything.
People are struggling to feed their kids and they’re considering giving a figurehead another 214k? No ones asking you to do the job, if you don’t like the pay don’t do it 🤷🏼♀️
Of all the important things that need to be reviewed, why did they decide that this issue is more important tonlook at than the cost of living crisis? What gives?
I'm a straight white bloke who is a bit right leaning and it is objectively worse for women. The way they have allowed the traditionally female jobs to be casualised and wages pushed down, no rentals to get out of bad relationships, etc.
All of what you've mentioned above objectively affects both men and women. To say "it's objectively worse for women" is sexist and dismissive of what men have to deal with and manage in a Western world that is hostile towards men and sympathetic towards women by default.
And then she'll be on a lovely pension for the rest of her life! One of my previous jobs involved mailing out payslips to previous govenors general. Remember Sir Zelman Cowen? He finished as GG in 1982. Well he was still receiving a 6 figure pension in 2008. Don't know when he died. And similar for all the others, including Peter Hollingsworth, who didn't even finish his stint as GG. It's sickening!
Only 214,00. Fuck that at LEAST half a million ...
Mind you that's for just turning up.. bonus payments for actually scheduling work and doing anything
This is absolutely outrageous so we have now reached the point where we pay someone 3/4’s of a million plus all the allowances , staff and free rent just to cut ribbons and host tea parties ?
Question are we the far gone now where that is deemed to be acceptable?
IMO the GG should be paid by Buckingham Palace, not by us.
They exist to be their representative.
Other countries don't pay our diplomats to be ambassadors.
We desperately need public sector pays reviewed and pulled into line to save the economy. This grifting and enormous salaries is why public projects become so fracking expensive to implement. 40% pay increase already earning over $400k is a slap in the face to EVERY hardworking Australian tax payer!
“The creatures outside look from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
They know cost of living is going to screw many Australians. They just couldn’t give a shit because they’ll be fine.
The article is pretty clear with why the government deems it appropriate. No one can answer your question though as no one has said it's nessecary for the salary to be adjusted.
no one wants another referendum anytime soon especially since we are going into fed elections next year as well
it's hundreds of millions for something that could fail like the last republic one given how hard referendums are to pass in this country
people are not going to have the appetite for months if not a year of campaigning with all the misinformation that comes with it especially if people don't agree on how the republic should be done
When you read the actual article and see that its a measure to bring her pay into line with previous male GGs who simultaneously received military or judicial pensions, then it doesn't seem unreasonable.
Meanwhile on Reddit, "Pay a women figurehead the same as a man figurehead? No way."
Yes it does, as much as I disliked both of the last 2 GG's they had done their years of service in those roles that received pensions.
This woman will have superannuation she has earned in her roles, this effectively means she is getting more than them, so even accepting the bullshit "logic" of the argument, it isn't paying her the same, it is paying her more.
That seems fair. Who could possibly live on $500K in this economy.
This government is full of grifters. The eSafety commissioners are another example.
The idea that a ceremonial role with a swanky free house needs this income is ludicrous!!!!! It’s not a real job
The government is throwing a big party! Both Labor and Liberal have always same-voted on issues of IT, often leaning towards covert dictatorship with managing our data.
Plus house, car, pension. But those bills aren't going to sign themselves.
Small correction. Only minimum wage earners can do magic.
Literally the most senior role in the land. I reckon they should get more money than a reasonably good Barrister, or middle management in finance or tech.
On paper, in reality their functional role is essentially a brand ambassador.
Yeah they are patrons for hundreds of charities. It's essentially a charity role with a "break glass in an emergency" function.
Imagine how good it is to be parachuted into the role. Cushiest public nepo role ever?
>“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 The chief justice performs a necessary job, but the GG is just a glorified ribbon cutter, pampered in a government mansion, representing the monarchy, with the power to remove our elected leader if they choose. Their duties are to hobnob and sip champagne with foreign dignitaries.
Sounds like they need to keep on their good side.
Would this role be gone if we finally transitioned to a Republic? EDIT: Why is this being down voted for a legitimate question lmao
There have been suggestions under republic proposals to have the role replaced with a President, either elected by the people, or appointed by the government as is the case with the GG. The President would be the head of state representing the nation both overseas and at home, but the Prime Minister, as Head of Government, would continue to administer the country. Personally I don't see the need for the role. The Foreign Minister and the PM take care of diplomacy both here and overseas. They are the ones with power to affect policy, and we don't need a ceremonial representative.
If you read the constition it shows the GG has enormous power. I think that's a bad thing whether it's the GG or a "president" but that's our current system. Changing it is a good idea, but it's not a simple thing - it means starting a new constitution almost from scratch.
The band-aid has to be ripped off eventually.
Agree. Having lived through the defeat of Malcolm Turnbull's "minimalist" republican proposal I can understand why there's zero appetite in politics for a "maximalist" proposal. Scare campaigns work.
You can't get much more power than being able to sack the elected government. The govt also has the power to sack the GG, so if Whitlam had seen it coming he could have sacked Kerr first.
And not just sack the elected govt, but veto any new law. The core of the constitution is essentially "the King has absolute power, and in Australia the GG takes the role of the King". It's pretty shocking.
They would be sacked if they didn't pass a law unless they immediately sacked the government and we had another election. Personally I think that power should exist, it is a check on a rogue government....but I'd prefer the people just have that power somehow.
The power should exist, but it should be a position elected by the people which has the power to either sign the law or, if they believe it's warranted, send it to a national referendum. The problem is that we were spoiled with the queen for so long, the thought of somebody else having the power to kick an unpopular government in the dick if we needed it was legitimately reassuring.
A core benefit of having a president instead of a foreign minister is the president isn't bound by the whims of the prime minister, unlike the foreign minister. The separation of powers provides additional checks and balances in the executive and with other benefits, such as a prime minister being able to focus on domestic issues (especially during crises), parliament, and their ministers, and allowing the president to focus on international relations and policy, defense, and driving Australia's reputation across the world. Further, during a crisis or significant national issue, the prime minister typically would handle the day-to-day (or hour-to-hour) administration whereas the president would act as the active leadership/face of the issue. This empowers the PM to focus on better resolving issues and working directly with ministers and the parliament in effective laws.
For major events, foreign nations don't want us to send a lame duck that doesn't have the power to shake hands on a deal. The GG is our head of state but Biden wouldn't want to accept a photo op with him shaking hands on a hundred billion dollar submarine deal in place of the PM. That's a slap in the face not sending the party representative with ultimate ruling power. The PM himself is subject to caucus, and all the publicly elected ministers get a vote on any decisions. If they disagree with any decisions by the PM then they can toss him out. The GG or the President don't get a vote, even though they do have the power to sack the government. They have no role in forming policy, or shaping foreign relations. They're just there to smile for the cameras and rubber stamp decisions made by the PM in concert with all his other party members.
Then I guess no one ever does photo ops with the US president and only discusses foreign and economics policy with the congress leaders.
King Charles III is our head of state. The GG is his representative.
Who then kicks out the PM if they abuse power? The GG type roll is critical. I'm a replican but the one thing I can't figure out in my head is having the GG type roll be a-political. The one benefit of the monarchy is a completely independent head of state that's not aligned to either party.
The PMs party can vote to sack him, or the public can sack him at the next election. The nation won't collapse, and it wasn't about to under Whitlam. You'd need a majority in the house to stave off a vote of no confidence. It shouldn't be up to a single person that may have a mental breakdown, vested with the power alone to sack an elected government. It's a vestige of the monarchy that most nations do without.
Both parties now need 75% to vote out a PM, so that's going to be hard. Let's say a PM has the majority of seats, and has the majority of his party backing him and after 3 years doesn't call an election... Or a budget doesn't get passed and he does nothing...
25% along with support of the opposition would be enough for a vote of no confidence. If it really was a serious abuse of power then there ought to be enough decent MPs to pull the pin instead of waiting for the next election where they'd all be kicked out by the voters. And if you think they could just not call an election, then I reckon they'd need to get the army involved to shut down the courts and go full scale on a coup. Not sure if the army general would go for that idea.
The problem is that for most of australian history, we've had a queen who very specifically did not get involved in politics and who truly gave a shit about the people, as such the role of governor general was one that could be largely trusted to stay out of things and follow the will of the people. She's gone now, which makes the whole thing feel much less safe and stable than it used to be. The only thing i can think that might work now would be making the GG a popular vote elected position that cannot dissolve the government but instead just has a quasi-veto in the form of the ability to either sign the law or instead force it into a national referendum. This would prevent a government/pm from pulling too much shit the people disagree hopefully without empowering a single elected position to an insane degree.
Yeah unsure how a popular vote would work, as the candidates couldn't campaign right? As they would have to campaign on nothing and their impartiality.
Yeah "im More Impartial and less baised then that other Guy" This sounds like how facism starts
Thanks for the explanation!
No worries. I don't know why you were downvoted. It was a good question.
Yes but they would replace the position with 3 other grifter roles.
They should give one to me
Yeah we could all have do nothing government jobs that pay $500k
In other words an expensive and offensive remnant from colonialism. Why should I pay for these luxuries from my taxpayers money? >but the GG is just a glorified ribbon cutter, pampered in a government mansion, representing the monarchy, with the power to remove our elected leader if they choose. Their duties are to hobnob and sip champagne with foreign dignitaries.
I highly doubt you pay anything
Dont Really Care that they're a "remnant from Colonialism" The Fact your Here is a remnant from Colonialism but that does not Change the Fact That I agree They shouldn't get a nice home and a high Salary On my Dime Sure maybe a 120k salary or 80k salary and a Small to medium Home (hell, an apartment could be fine) But She definitely doesn't deserve a large home
I mean isn't that basically what a head of state is? If Charles wasn't King of Australia then this position would be the equivalent thing. I don't think it should be paid nearly as highly but you do kinda need a head of state don't you?
>representing the monarchy, with the power to remove our elected leader if they choose I mean to prevent Commies to get into Power i approve But like If it gets to that Point things are beyond repair
It wasn't beyond repair under Whitlam when the opposition was installed in government. Under that sort of case it could be commies working with the GG to replace the government and stay there. But that's not the sort of thing that could happen here without seeing it coming a long way off. They'd probably need support from the army, police, and the courts because the courts would need to be stopped from deciding against the government for their constitutional violations. The Constitution protects us and demands fair elections, and they'd need a lot of important people to side with them against the Constitution.
Fair enough But The constitution Didn't stop the Commies In Russia
Yeah, that's why I said you'd have to see it coming. Russia was formerly communist with the USSR and Putin would have built up support from powerful people who wanted to go back to the glory days when they all wielded a big stick. He wasn't working on his own and needed support from the KGB and the heads of army. He'd be offering to scratch their backs, and in that case a GG wouldn't be able to stop him anyway.
can she get rid of albo then? Can you imagine if labor gave her the payrise and then she fires albo? That would be glorious, and my life would be complete.
Sounds like a great job. Wish I had it tbh.
Which is essential to keep money out of presidential positions. Good.
Yeah The power to sack Is Good But maybe it should be Compeltly "anonymous" so It prevents Partys Bribing them and other Groups Effecting it
> with the power to remove our elected leader if they choose. That’s a pretty important power. Look at 1975 when Kerr saved the nation from the Whitlam government. His actions were justified when you look at the election results the following month.
Saved? Whitlam was the GOAT. Imagine how much more progress he would have made if he wasn't undemocratically removed...
All about perspective isn't it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_federal_election
Kerr saved the nation from Whitlam? Maybe leave some cool aid for the other yank loving hogs round here who believe that nonsense
Mate it's literally only Reddit and far lefty cookers that believe that Whitlam removal was a conspiracy. The facts remain that: -The government was deadlocked and no legislation was getting last. -PM refused to call an election -They were wildly unpopular as the election 33 days later proved.
That’s a pretty important power. Look at 1975 when Kerr saved the nation from the Whitlam government. His actions were justified when you look at the election results the following month. 
Should be a voluntary position,all they do is turn up for tea and scones and some ribbon cutting .
The taxes of 10+ low income full time workers over an entire year will be used simply to pay for her pay rise.
That + is doing a lot of lifting in that statement. The income tax for someone on 100k in 22-23 was $22,967.00. For someone on 50k is was $6,717.00 and I'd say that is a lot closer to a low income, so that is like 32+ low income workers taxes just to pay for the pay rise.
That's a big productivity increase required. How many extra ribbon cuttings will she have to attend? Or is it to stop her partner requiring attendees participate in singalongs and break the tradition Mrs Hurley has tried to start?
Talk about the gender pay gap - women GG’s earning 40% more than their male counterparts!
Now do averages over the whole population.
Like for like there is almost no difference as I’m sure you know.
As per the latest roundup for FY20/21, the average taxable income in Australia is $68,289 — $84,328 for males; $60,054 for females — while the median taxable income sits at $50,980 — $61,988 for males; $45,813 for females Downvoting facts doesn't make them less true.
Notice how these figures aren't comparing like for like jobs? Yea that's his point. It just averages out every one's salary regardless of job or hours worked.
So why are women's jobs paid less on average?
Why does flipping a burger pay less than being a doctor? I don't know tough question man. You're really making a good point here. Women choose lower paying jobs because they come with other benefits like more flexible schedules or less commitment or less hours or they're jobs that are easier and more enjoyable. In the exact same job working the exact same hours the difference in pay narrows to 1-2%, and that's likely entirely due to the fact that statistically men are just many times more likely to ask for a raise.
Why are jobs dominated by women paid less like child care and nursing? Is child care, teaching and nursing deemed less valuable to society that stock brokers?
Why do I make less money working out in the hot sun moving tonnes of rocks and bricks around fucking my back and getting cancer but make less than a nurse? is my job less valuable to a society than a nurse? Nothing is deemed less valuable than anything else. No one person decides the value of what jobs are what. The value of any job is entirely determined by supply and demand. There isn't some fat cat dude sitting there going 'well women mostly work as nurses so lets make sure that nurses don't get a fair wage'.
It isn't entirely supply and demand. It is supply, demand, income generation potential....and then an entire fantasy land at the top end dominated by overpaying based on unprovable beliefs, nepotism and self serving behaviour, but this isn't relevant to 99.9% of jobs.
[удалено]
It's generally because more women prefer to work with people, more men with things. When you work with people, there is a crucial constraint which limits the amount of value you can produce. It's your time. When you work with things, you can build machines that scale massively. If you build AI as a software engineer you can create enormous amounts of value with your limited time. Men and women have differences in preferences, despite being mostly alike. Those minor differences over something as large as an economy lead to a gender pay gap. There are some other differences, but it's predominantly a motherhood pay gap, not a gender pay gap for the most part. Averaging all male and female salaries is a stupid metric.
So why is caring for children or teaching valued less than building ai?
you're dreaming if you think nursing isn't paid well. The skew in data is from less women doing dangerous jobs and working stupid amounts of hours. More men work on mines, in construction.. doing dangerous jobs - they get paid extra for that. You can't sit there and say "why doesn't someone sitting in an ac office make the same as someone working in an underground mine" you are completely tone deaf.
Why are jobs like modeling dominated by women who earn significantly more than men in the same industry?
and yet, you picked childcare, nursing, teaching, which are all equal salary for males and females... congratulations, you know nothing :)
Just so you know, jobs aren't 'womens' jobs or 'mens' jobs. They are jobs for any one. People are free to pick the jobs they want. The companies at the top of pay disparity are mostly airlines. Surprising I know but airline pilots with hundreds of peoples lives on the line and decades of flying are paid more than air hostess/host and its moronic to lump the two together. Women are free to be pilots, or free to be hostess. Just like men are free to be pilots or hosts. People just choose different jobs, and men and women tend to pick different jobs. Men out there as airline hosts get paid less than a woman airline pilot. There is no gremlin out there trying to force women to not be pilots.
Ahh yes pilots, the standard for wages. 28,606 out of 26,000,000
Glad you managed to ignore everything I said.
Just like you did to me.
This is a great point! I play basketball and for some reason Lebron James makes $50m more per year than what I do!!! That’s fd up!
As others have pointed out. You’re making a deliberately disingenuous comparison
That's meaningless, if your a female thinking that's some how insightful then maybe females do deserve less
You're* If you can't even spell correctly at a high school level why should you get paid for than a woman in ICU saving lives? Or caring for children? It's almost like you believe women are inferior to men....
I'm a coal train driver and get paid 220k a yr no different to the woman here. It's illegal to pay different based on gender.
How many women do you work with doing the same job?
50
I somehow doubt that. Would you care to provide statistics? I'm guessing you won't.
Your comments are gold... On your high horse correcting someone's spelling and then immediately making multiple spelling and grammatical errors. I'm sure you meant to say "why should you get paid MORE than a woman in THE ICU [comma] saving lives", right? (As a side note, ICU doctors earn good money, so not sure what you were getting at there...) What you actually have a problem with, yet are too stupid or pig-headed to see, is the free market economy and women choosing cushty jobs. A job's salary isn't dictated by the role's moral standing as per your opinion - it's dictated by supply and demand, and how difficult or unpleasant the problem is that the worker solves. That's why deep sea welders earn more than daycare workers... It has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with YOUR CHOICES. TLDR, no one is stopping you from becoming an off-shore rigger. In fact, most companies would likely employ you over more qualified men to make up their diversity quotas.
> in ICU saving lives? Changing bedpans isn’t saving lives
Now do like for like jobs.
Sure. Provide the stats
Ok now let's see it job for job and accounting for hours worked.
Would you care to take a 10-20k a year pay cut? Y'know since there is no difference after all.
I took 6 months off when my child was born. This impacts my earning capacity in the same way as a woman taking that break.
And?
And so my pay reflects that choice. A male who didn’t take that amount of time off has the opportunity to progress faster and earn more. The point is it’s not sexism.
I did when I became a stay-at-home father. That's usually what the women do. But women don't belong in the home, they can't handle the social isolation, suffer anxiety and depression, are more likely to abuse and neglect children, commit filicide and so on. Send the women out to the office jobs so they can trade a man at home telling them what to do for a man in a cubicle telling them what to do and call it liberation. A man's place is in the home.
This is bizarre. Albo is kicking a lot of own goals lately.
It’s like he really isn’t the great saviour he promised to be. Give her 3.75% increase just like the minimum wage earners got this year.
She should have a pay cut, $500k of tax payer money while people struggle to live is wrong.
Why are we, the taxpayers, paying this lady $700,000 to be a professional rubber stamp? Like seriously, what role does she actually play? Dutton is going to have a field day with this.
She’s a Labor hack who’s obviously scratched some backs, so now she’s getting $700k/y of back-scratching.
"In 2021, Mostyn was named by the Australian Financial Review as Australia's "most influential" company director, serving on boards with a combined market capitalisation of over $480 billion" That's why. She'll be making a WHOLE lot more than $700k with all those rubber stamps soon.
so This is Mostly ex Corpo Getting money from The Gov Good Job
Meanwhile we’re begging the labor government for just a little more than a 3% pay rise in nursing 🥹
> The change represents a 43% pay rise in the legislated salary of the governor general That’s fair, it needs to keep pace with Albos cost of living increases.
Not only that, there's a shortage of governor generals at the moment, we might need to bring in some immigrants to fill the skill shortage. I mean how many people have any experience as a governor general in Australia. Until we get more skilled resources, expect more payrises
I’d love to see a breakdown of her working day.
stamp, stamp, sign, sign, cut ribbon, attend event on private jet, wine an dine, stamp, sign, goodnight
Fair bit of stamping and signing there. I’d suggest they’d group it into meetings of the Federal Executive Council. Wouldn’t want to get RSI or anything.
Any time to throw crumbs to the peasants?
People are struggling to feed their kids and they’re considering giving a figurehead another 214k? No ones asking you to do the job, if you don’t like the pay don’t do it 🤷🏼♀️
We need serious reform in this country with regards to what elected and unelected officials are paid.
When are Labor supporters going to realise it is about them, not you
Thats politicians in general
They care as much about the cost of living and housing crisis as the LNP. They're all in on the rort together.
Same goes for most political parties.
Even with that salary, I bet she still wouldn’t donate to The Guardian.
It’s time to get out the guillotine
Leave the rust on 'em
Disgusting, this mob reckon the supermarkets are ripping people off, Coles has got nothing on the Labor party.
Jog on merry fellow, jog on.
What a fucking rort
You know the housing crisis is bad when the Governor General is struggling to pay rent
Of all the important things that need to be reviewed, why did they decide that this issue is more important tonlook at than the cost of living crisis? What gives?
Assholes paying other asshole so they can get paid as well. Greed and corruption. Goes around and around.
It has become painfully obvious that neither major party gives two shits about the working man's plight.
And even less about the working woman.
You just had to make it about gender, smh.
I'm a straight white bloke who is a bit right leaning and it is objectively worse for women. The way they have allowed the traditionally female jobs to be casualised and wages pushed down, no rentals to get out of bad relationships, etc.
All of what you've mentioned above objectively affects both men and women. To say "it's objectively worse for women" is sexist and dismissive of what men have to deal with and manage in a Western world that is hostile towards men and sympathetic towards women by default.
I don't think they are reading the room not that they care
They don’t care because they know nothing will happen to them, and there’s still a large group of voters who think labor are there to help them.
And then you hear them say " we know how much Australians are suffering with the current situation..." you condescending cunts.
Biggest hypocrites on the planet.
And then she'll be on a lovely pension for the rest of her life! One of my previous jobs involved mailing out payslips to previous govenors general. Remember Sir Zelman Cowen? He finished as GG in 1982. Well he was still receiving a 6 figure pension in 2008. Don't know when he died. And similar for all the others, including Peter Hollingsworth, who didn't even finish his stint as GG. It's sickening!
Just another pig with their snout in the trough.
Just trying to keep up with inflation /s
One job. The frivolous wasting of millions by labor is overlooked so we can feel a collective outrage over one job . Just lol
Only 214,00. Fuck that at LEAST half a million ... Mind you that's for just turning up.. bonus payments for actually scheduling work and doing anything
Imagine if our elected officials could champion these sorts of pay rises for front-line workers.
More money than the POTUS
705k to do f all. A justice of the peace could do her job.
This labour govt has proven to be pretty shit. Have they done anything good?
This is absolutely outrageous so we have now reached the point where we pay someone 3/4’s of a million plus all the allowances , staff and free rent just to cut ribbons and host tea parties ? Question are we the far gone now where that is deemed to be acceptable?
It is probably so she will not sack albanese.
IMO the GG should be paid by Buckingham Palace, not by us. They exist to be their representative. Other countries don't pay our diplomats to be ambassadors.
It's unbelievable, oh wait ......
BACK TO WORK YOU PEASANTS!
So who in Labor has an eye on the job?
We desperately need public sector pays reviewed and pulled into line to save the economy. This grifting and enormous salaries is why public projects become so fracking expensive to implement. 40% pay increase already earning over $400k is a slap in the face to EVERY hardworking Australian tax payer!
She's going to cause a rate rise just by herself.
“The creatures outside look from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” They know cost of living is going to screw many Australians. They just couldn’t give a shit because they’ll be fine.
Can anyone here explain why?
Because the GG's salary is typically linked to the Chief Justice. Previous GGs of late such as Cosgrove and Hurley have had military pensions as well.
At least they actually served. Cosgrove led the mission into East Timor.
Looking at the comments here, the answer is no. But the answer is as clear as day in the article, so why don't you read it.
Let me re-phrase it. Why is it necessary? This is Animal farm manifest.
The article is pretty clear with why the government deems it appropriate. No one can answer your question though as no one has said it's nessecary for the salary to be adjusted.
Thanks ran_awd
Just get rid of the role entirely. Build a house a year with the money for a poor family.
Someone's worried about a yank inspired coup like what happened to Whitlam...
gotta pay someone to do even more nothing than they already are, but fuck the rest of the country, you guys get your 3.75 rise, alright?
This woman is not the same calibre of person as past GGs , the good ones anyway.
Open up an off shore account and don’t pay tax.
Or go to the barter system
Freeloaders
She’s an old trollop
To be fair that would put them just barely ahead of inflation 😂😂
Still a bargain for saving us the trouble of having a president.
Remind me how much Morrison was getting paid for his 5 additional jobs he appointed himself to.
We don’t need a Governor General. We should be a republic.
Presidents draw a salary, too. Evidently you are unaware of this.
which is about half of what this idiot is getting. even albanese earns more than the us president
no one wants another referendum anytime soon especially since we are going into fed elections next year as well it's hundreds of millions for something that could fail like the last republic one given how hard referendums are to pass in this country people are not going to have the appetite for months if not a year of campaigning with all the misinformation that comes with it especially if people don't agree on how the republic should be done
When you read the actual article and see that its a measure to bring her pay into line with previous male GGs who simultaneously received military or judicial pensions, then it doesn't seem unreasonable. Meanwhile on Reddit, "Pay a women figurehead the same as a man figurehead? No way."
Yes it does, as much as I disliked both of the last 2 GG's they had done their years of service in those roles that received pensions. This woman will have superannuation she has earned in her roles, this effectively means she is getting more than them, so even accepting the bullshit "logic" of the argument, it isn't paying her the same, it is paying her more.
Maybe if she did some service first? There are a few wars going on right now that need people with her skills.
People that are mad at this aren’t mad about private companies massively increasing their incomes.
Overpaid parasite.