A Senate committee has rejected a proposal to strip pension from Governors-General involved in misconduct.

The bill, introduced by Greens senator David Shoebridge, was prompted by the controversial actions of former governor-general Dr Peter Hollingworth in mishandling abuse complaints within the Anglican church.

A recent investigation by the Anglican church's complaints body, Kooyoora, uncovered that Hollingworth permitted two clergy members to retain their positions within the church despite being aware of their involvement in the sexual assault of children. 

Hollingworth himself was not directly implicated in any abuse.

Under the current system, former governor-generals like Hollingworth are entitled to an annual pension of $374,928.

Senator Shoebridge's bill aimed to withhold this pension from former governors-general found guilty of serious misconduct. 

The intent was to hold individuals accountable for actions that violate the trust placed in them.

The Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, in their evaluation, acknowledged the severe nature of child abuse as a violation against the most vulnerable members of society, however, the committee highlighted concerns about the bill's mechanisms for investigating misconduct allegations. 

They questioned the constitutionality of the bill's approach, pointing out that determining guilt should be within the purview of the judicial system, not the legislature.

Additionally, the committee noted that the bill lacked provisions for ensuring procedural fairness to those accused of “serious misconduct”. 

They expressed worries that passing such a bill could set a problematic precedent that goes against constitutional principles and the rule of law.

A dissenting opinion, presented by the Greens and signed by Senator Shoebridge, argued that the bill indeed included a process for identifying serious misconduct. 

It was clarified that the bill's objective was not to equate serious misconduct with criminal conduct but to trigger the removal of a governor-general's pension based on the severity of their actions.

The dissent further argued that the bill's framework resembled that used to remove judges involved in serious misconduct. 

Additionally, they pointed out that the constitution did not explicitly address pension payments for former governors-general post their term in office.

The dissenting opinion expressed frustration with what they deemed as invalid arguments against the bill, which they believed detracted from the core issue. 

They questioned whether former governors-general, regardless of their conduct, should continue to receive substantial post-office payments without scrutiny.