Business news and discussion on TalkFuse.
List emerges of Australia’s highest paid CEOs… including the little-known number one who earns 500 times an average worker’s salary
The article reports a new ranking of the highest-paid chief executives at Australian-listed companies, with Life360 co-founder Chris Hulls placed first. It matters because it highlights the scale of executive remuneration in Australia, the growing influence of US-based bosses at ASX-listed firms, and renewed scrutiny of how pay compares with ordinary wages.
– Chris Hulls topped the list with realised pay of A$47.7 million in the 2025 financial year, largely driven by around A$36 million from exercised share options rather than salary alone. – His earnings were reported as nearly 500 times the average full-time Australian wage, while the average ASX100 chief executive earned about 55 times that benchmark. – Other leading earners included ResMed’s Mick Farrell on A$35.2 million and News Corp’s Robert Thomson on A$33.6 million. – Sigma Healthcare’s Vikesh Ramsunder and Macquarie’s Shemara Wikramanayake completed the top five, with Wikramanayake the only woman in the top 20. – The ranking was compiled by the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors, which said US-based executives now account for half of the top 10 and noted that, despite some pay measures flattening, bonuses remain widespread.
In short
- Life360’s Chris Hulls was Australia’s highest-paid CEO.
- His pay reached A$47.7 million in 2025.
- The ranking reignites debate over executive pay gaps.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Executive remuneration at this scale reflects governance failure and harmful wealth inequality rather than justified market outcomes. When a CEO earns 500 times an average worker's salary, it suggests compensation has become detached from performance or contribution to shareholder value. Share options do not resolve this concern—they were still awarded as compensation and only amplify the rewards of already-wealthy individuals. This concentration of wealth weakens social cohesion and diverts resources from workers facing genuine cost-of-living pressures, raising legitimate questions about boardroom priorities and whether Australian companies adequately scrutinise pay decisions through a public interest lens.
The case against
These compensation packages reflect genuinely competitive global labour markets for scarce executive talent. Share options meaningfully align executives with shareholder interests, so compensation rises only when companies perform well enough to increase share prices—not guaranteed windfalls. Comparing CEO pay to average workers is misleading; executives possess rare skills, global experience, and substantial accountability that warrant earnings multiples. Australian-listed companies competing multinationionally must offer remuneration packages that retain talent against international offers. Focusing on pay disparities rather than whether compensation reflects value creation risks discouraging the calibre of leadership these companies require.
Explained simply
A new ranking has compiled the pay packets of Australia's highest-earning chief executives at large listed companies. The study looks at real money received by these bosses during the 2025 financial year, including salary, bonuses and benefits such as exercised share options that represent actual cash gains.
The figures reveal stark disparities in executive pay. The highest-paid boss earned around 500 times the salary of an average full-time Australian worker, whilst the typical chief executive at a top 100 ASX company earns about 55 times the average wage. These ratios highlight the gap between executive pay and ordinary workers' earnings.
The ranking matters because it demonstrates the composition and scale of executive pay across Australia's largest companies. In particular, executives based in the United States now hold half the top-paying positions, and bonus payments remain a common feature of executive pay despite some recent moderation. This reveals shifts in how Australia's largest firms are led and structured.