Bill Shorten has agreed not to be paid as much as his predecessor at the top of the University of Canberra but the actual amount has yet to be decided.
"His remuneration is being considered in the context of the current higher education settings and the university's operating environment," the university said.
It added: "The Chancellor and the incoming Vice-Chancellor have agreed the remuneration package will be less than the previous VC's."
Mr Shorten leaves politics and becomes the university's vice-chancellor at the beginning of 2025, a year after Paddy Nixon suddenly left the vice-chancellor's post.
Professor Nixon's remuneration (salary plus other benefits like health insurance, bonuses and superannuation contributions) was $1.8 million.
The National Tertiary Education Union calculated this was the highest pay of any vice-chancellor in Australia.
Perhaps sensitive to the bad publicity surrounding the size of Prof Nixon's sum, the university and Mr Shorten have agreed on less than Prof Nixon received. But they haven't revealed the actual figure, and whether it will exceed the seven figures many other Australian vice-chancellors get.
The university did say his pay will be "considered in the context of the current higher education settings and the university's operating environment".
On this, there are two conflicting pulls.
On the one hand, the university's finances are not good. There are job cuts, recruitment freezes and blocks on travel as its deficit of spending over revenue balloons.
And tough times for staff might indicate tough times for the vice-chancellor, too.
On the other hand, vice-chancellors of Australian universities often get salaries of more than $1 million. As The Australian Financial Review reported: "In 2022, 10 Australian vice-chancellors earned greater remuneration packages than Louise Richardson, the head of the world's best university, Oxford."
Australian universities justify the salaries at the top by saying they are competing for top talent in a global labour market - but it is not clear what Mr Shorten's market value outside politics might be.
Does Mr Shorten himself expect the $1 million-plus?
Will he be paid more than those in similar positions in Oxford and Harvard when UC was ranked somewhere between 350th and 400th in this year's THES World University Rankings?
Mr Shorten has a reputation as a champion of "transparency". As Labor leader, he called for "more transparency, greater accountability and rebuilding trust in our public institutions".
Might we get transparency about his pay?
