30% wage rise to politicians

[Julia]

Why does that bother you that much?

Considering Ms Gillard's global responsibilities compared to that of the US President, it's laughable that she should be paid more. Especially as her policies are not even original thought, but rather the orders of the Greens which she adopts as the price of their continuing to support her tenure.

I think you have to give our prime minister's the benefit of the doubt.

Really? Why? She has done nothing so far imo that prompts me to regard anything about her as positive.

AFAIC She has earnt her position, she has spent considerable time getting to where she is now, and has fought many battles. I think it's a wonderful achievement for a woman to become our first prime minister.

Her gender is irrelevant or should be. She has broken a fundamental promise in instituting a carbon tax which is going to seriously disadvantage this country.

So freaken what if she earns more than you think she's worth.

It's not about what I think: it's about all the politicians happily accepting such a massive pay rise when all we have heard in the last several weeks is that cut backs have to be made so the government can fulfil the purely political aim of achieving a tiny surplus. (I'll believe it when I see it). Government departments have to make cuts which will inevitably result in reduction of public services.

So how reasonable is it that in such an austere environment, the politicians should get 30%!!!

\ Why does 99% of the population have to fight so hard to get so little while these useless jokers grant themselves 30% increases just like that, for free? Something is not right in this country.

Exactly.

I agree with you on one point, Abbott could win a lot of credo by publicly raising the hell out of this and declaring he and his party will give 10% back to salvation army or similar

Great point, qldfrog. It's just amazing that Abbott & Co cannot appreciate the kudos in the community by taking a stand on this which is fundamentally moral.

I feel entitled to whinge when a non elected person so called representative is messing my country and getting personal benefits from the whole deal

And so he should be! If he was any kind of decent politician he would have said something like "I think the tribunal has got it wrong this time and we will not be supporting it". But no, he came out and said "we have to respect the tribunals decision" OINK OINK, here little piggy, that's all they are the lot of them, the cartoon above says it all.

Yes, agree.

Unfortunately she has put the idea of another female Prime Minister back 200yrs.

+1.

 

[Smurf1976]

Simple supply and demand should answer the question of salary.

Lots of people can mow lawns or drive a courier van. Therefore the pay is relatively low.

Very few people have the talent and public appeal to actually sell millions of albums or make every movie a smash hit. Successful singers and actors therefore make a lot of money.

Plenty of people could do it, but very few actually want to be a sex worker. Therefore they make reasonable money.

Last time I checked, there was no shortage of people willing to enter politics with many spending large amounts of their own money attempting to get elected. Supply clearly exceeds demand, suggesting that wages do not need to be excessive. That said, there is of course the "pay peanuts and get monkeys" argument, but likewise there is the reality that paying excessively attracts those who are motivated only by personal gain to an occupation where this is not a desirable personality trait.

I'd say that 3 x average full time earnings is a reasonable income for a state premier so that's somewhere approaching $200,000. Ministers and Leader of the Opposition perhaps 2.5 times average earnings.

For a Prime Minister I'd say perhaps 5 times average earnings or around $300,000. Ministers and Leader of the Oppositon 2.5 times. Those figures assume zero other benefits other than 9% compulsory super, vehicle for official duties only, phone for official use only etc.

For a general run of the mill backbencher with no specific responsibilities I'd say that pay ought to be set by legislation to equal average full time earnings.

By paying sensible wages, we'd get people in politics who actually want to make real change rather than ending up with a bunch of people who, like many CEO's, are in it for nothing other than personal gain.

 

[sptrawler]

Simple supply and demand should answer the question of salary.

Lots of people can mow lawns or drive a courier van. Therefore the pay is relatively low.

Very few people have the talent and public appeal to actually sell millions of albums or make every movie a smash hit. Successful singers and actors therefore make a lot of money.

Plenty of people could do it, but very few actually want to be a sex worker. Therefore they make reasonable money.

Last time I checked, there was no shortage of people willing to enter politics with many spending large amounts of their own money attempting to get elected. Supply clearly exceeds demand, suggesting that wages do not need to be excessive. That said, there is of course the "pay peanuts and get monkeys" argument, but likewise there is the reality that paying excessively attracts those who are motivated only by personal gain to an occupation where this is not a desirable personality trait.

I'd say that 3 x average full time earnings is a reasonable income for a state premier so that's somewhere approaching $200,000. Ministers and Leader of the Opposition perhaps 2.5 times average earnings.

For a Prime Minister I'd say perhaps 5 times average earnings or around $300,000. Ministers and Leader of the Oppositon 2.5 times. Those figures assume zero other benefits other than 9% compulsory super, vehicle for official duties only, phone for official use only etc.

For a general run of the mill backbencher with no specific responsibilities I'd say that pay ought to be set by legislation to equal average full time earnings.

By paying sensible wages, we'd get people in politics who actually want to make real change rather than ending up with a bunch of people who, like many CEO's, are in it for nothing other than personal gain.

Very well put Smurph, especially the comment about paying excessive amounts doesn't mean you end up with the right people.
History has shown us some professions that used to be a calling, are now attracting a much higher relative salary. But haven't necessarily attracted better people as can be seen by outcomes.

 

[Tyler Durden]

Simple supply and demand should answer the question of salary.

I was thinking something along the same lines. That is, if our politicians were to look for work in the private sector, how much would corporations be willing to pay them?

 

[IFocus]

I think our poly's are under paid

Simple test is how good are the current crop

Monkeys / peanuts etc

Fu(king useless, we have photo opportunity Doc No on one side and Swan on the other both sides pay more and demand quality.

BTW I get more than an MP that passes law on what I can and cannot do hows that possible?

 

[Aussiejeff]

BTW I get more than an MP that passes law on what I can and cannot do hows that possible?

Ergo, you are not being paid peanuts, therefore you are not a monkey?

 

[Smurf1976]

I think our poly's are under paid

Simple test is how good are the current crop

Monkeys / peanuts etc

Get rid of the big money from politics generally and then there will be some chance that you, I or others who actually want to do a good job could actually get elected.

The way it stands now, you need $ and the right backers to have anything more than a remote chance of actually being elected. To a very great extent, the Australian people only get to vote for those candidates favoured by a select few. That's not particularly democratic...

 

[Knobby22]

The Australian Cricket captain gets paid twice the amount the Prime Minister will get paid.

 

[Calliope]

The Australian Cricket captain gets paid twice the amount the Prime Minister will get paid.

The cricket captain has to be qualified for the job. Gillard was put there by the faceless men. Politics is not about salary. It is about power and influence. The money will come later.

 

[Smurf1976]

The Australian Cricket captain gets paid twice the amount the Prime Minister will get paid.

How many people can play cricket at top professional level?

How many people can implement the decisions and speak to the media based on what they are told by an army of advisers?

I'd expect that there is perhaps one or two people at most on this forum who would be able to successfuly do the job of Australian Cricket Captain. But there would be plenty who could undertake the basic functions of Prime Minister - the days when politics required actual knowledge are long gone, replaced by a paid army of thousands of bureaucrats who make the actual decisions.

Ask the Minister for Health some decent medical questions and they won't have a clue.

Ask the Minister for Resources and Energy to explain how the power grid actually works and you'll get a blank stare.

Ask the Minister for this, that or something else to rely on their own knowledge of the subject in detail and you'll find they don't actually have any real knowledge. The odd exception perhaps, but not many.

30 years ago you might have got sensible answers based on actual knowledge of specific subjects and that is why those people ended up with Ministerial responsibility for specific areas. But these days they are virtually all career politicians with little knowledge of anything except politics itself, hence the massive reliance on paid advisers who do the actual decision making.

To be Captain of the Australian Cricket Team you need to know how to play cricket at professional level and you need to know how to lead others to perform. To be a politician you need to know how to toe the party line, draw attention to yourself and so forth. Some management and public speaking skills would be useful but these are relatively common skills in the general community compared to professional sporting ability. Supply and demand - there are more people with the ability to follow orders from the party and with basic management skills than there are who can play criket at top professional level whilst also leading others, hence the pay relativity is not unreasonable.

 

[Calliope]

The Australian Cricket captain gets paid twice the amount the Prime Minister will get paid.

The cricket captain has to be qualified for the job. Gillard was put there by the faceless men. Politics is not about salary. It is about power and influence. The money will come later.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Why does that bother you that much?

I honestly don't understand why you spend the time bickering and whining, about someone else's good fortune. I think you have to give our prime minister's the benefit of the doubt. AFAIC She has earnt her position, she has spent considerable time getting to where she is now, and has fought many battles. I think it's a wonderful achievement for a woman to become our first prime minister.

So freaken what if she earns more than you think she's worth.

She, like every other leader we have had, has failed to address any of the major and serious problems facing our country.

She is a complete puppet of the mining industry - allowing them to set their own taxes rates at whatever they want.

What hard work? She hasn't done **** for me nor any other Australian who isn't filthy rich.

I was thinking something along the same lines. That is, if our politicians were to look for work in the private sector, how much would corporations be willing to pay them?

That depends to what extent they would still be able to influence policy.

 

[gav]

I thought this cartoon was very fitting...

 

[Wysiwyg]

The Australian Cricket captain gets paid twice the amount the Prime Minister will get paid.

As it should be with all vocal chord related jobs. I can't believe how many wind bags out there want buckets of money for sitting on their @#$& talking all day. Oh that's right, it's a cerebral contribution.

 

[Logique]

I thought this cartoon was very fitting...

So it is Gav. The pollies have shown that they are out of touch, and have lost a lot of moral authority and intellectual credibility with this decision.

Your average backbencher simply isn't worth $195k plus electorate allowances, plus indexed pension, plus travel perks. It's an insult to everyday Australians. That big bad Peter Slipper, he likes the allowances the MPs say - pack of hypocrites.

 

[joea]

Yep.

Jokes aside, we will now see the productivity of the Labor party in operation.
That is:: How quick they pay rise will be passed, implemented and processed into the bank account's of the MP'S.
Don't stand too close, as you will get pulled along in the slip stream.
joea

Yeah!! Pay rise goes through today to boost the politicians "Christmas Spending Spree".
Its marvelous what they can achieve when they agree on something.
No doubt Bob will buy a "six pack of trees" instead of the single one he had budgeted for.

joea

 

[johenmo]

She, like every other leader we have had, has failed to address any of the major and serious problems facing our country.

The primary focus is on re-election so 3 years becomes 1 - 2 years for any unpopular decisions. 2 years is not long enough to solve some of our problems, hence little action.

The remuneration should reflect the level of responsibility of the role - whether they perform is something else to be dealt with. I would rather see more salary $ for them and strip away the hidden costs - post Prime Ministerial freebies, free travel, etc etc, swap their super to an accumulation fund like many others, no election funding, unsubsidised meals. Some of these would then extend to the public service.

I look and see the $$$$ paid to sports people. Despite the skill levels required for cricket, it doesn't in my mind rate close to real work. Professional Sports people are overpaid, and overworshipped.

Having said all that I think the pollies do a crappy job but I wouldn't do it for 10 times what they get - it's not a pleasant role. But the overall package increase should not exceed the average for Australians.

 

[prawn_86]

Professional Sports people are overpaid,

I disagree. In fact i think that sports are one of the few examples of free market mechanisms (despite salary caps for some sports). Sports people get a % of revenue their sport generates. That revenue is generated through demand and purchasing of advertising, memberships, sponsorships, TV viewing, crowds etc etc

Sports people are paid as much as the market dicates they can be paid. IE if the AFL make $1b pa from their 'clients' their frontline 'workers' then get about 25% of that. How is that being overpaid?

At least sportstars have to keep performing, unlike politicians or CEOs who can just vote for their own remuneration. Maybe we should have a total spend salary cap for boards and politicians...

 

[joea]

I look and see the $$$$ paid to sports people. Despite the skill levels required for cricket, it doesn't in my mind rate close to real work. Professional Sports people are overpaid, and overworshipped.

Well I would rather watch Casey Stoner going down the straight at 300KLM/HR, than
watch Julia Gillard doing the "chicken dance" in question time.
So maybe that has something to do with it.

Actually while I am at it, they should ban any political TV exposure of our politicians 6 weeks before Christmas. We would then have a better festive season.
joea

 

[johenmo]

I disagree.
At least sportstars have to keep performing, unlike politicians or CEOs who can just vote for their own remuneration. Maybe we should have a total spend salary cap for boards and politicians...

Well I would rather watch Casey Stoner going down the straight at 300KLM/HR, than watch Julia Gillard doing the "chicken dance" in question time.
So maybe that has something to do with it.

Actually while I am at it, they should ban any political TV exposure of our politicians 6 weeks before Christmas. We would then have a better festive season.
joea

There will be disagreement on this - sport is strong in our society. Don't get me wrong, I like watching sport but when entertainers (non-vital service) get more than people in a vital service, and I'll use nurses as an example then that's when I think that societal values are skewed.

Sure, if they have it as a career then they need to get paid. They are professionals rather than amateurs. This is part of the reason why a day at the footie, cricket, soccer (pick yr country) is getting closer to being beyond the reach of "average" people - and I have heard this complaint in different countries.

Nicolas Anelka just signed to a Chinese club @ 300K per week, said the news. "Anelka’s contract is said by local media to be a lucrative $300,000 per week, which will involve advertising, as well as soccer commitments. It comes out to 7.7 million dollars a year. Some wonder where the funds are coming from, but it’s obvious now China is making itself a presence in the soccer transfer market."

Yeah yeah I hear it's a drawcard and makes more profits etc etc. But it's a self-fulfilling upward spiral that generates ever increasing payouts. Ditto the CEO bandwagon - the NAB boss signed a contract where he is to get 12 months pay if he is fired. Smart him, but what sort of moron woudl sign that. "Stuff up and we'l send you on your way with 12 months pay". But that's a whole new thread!!

Nope - a guy who kicks a ball around ain't worth 7.7 mill per year. He's just as entertaining at 100 or 150K per year.


Prawn - salary cap for pollies and boards is a great idea.

Joea - I'd rather watch a non-painted wall dry than watch that chicken dance. No taxpayer funding for pollie funding woudl be a great saving.