Prev
Next

Friday dilemma: does pollie deserve a cracker?

The Punch Team

by The Punch Team

02 Dec 12:30pm

Must Reads

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge - this is a caption

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

47

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread? - this is a caption

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

112

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref - this is a caption

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

83

Filed under: Friday Dilemma, Politics, Wages

94 comments

OK, we’ve been avoiding this topic because we have a very strong inkling the conversation will go only one way. But let’s get it over with. Do politicians deserve a pay rise?

Do the fruit loops deserve two cans?

To be precise, do they deserve the big fat whopping pay rises which the Remuneration Tribunal seems likely to hand down? Back benchers could get an extra $40k. Prime Minister Gillard could be up for $90k more, which would mean she out-earns US pres Barack Obama and British PM David Cameron.

Bob Brown doesn’t think it’s warranted. In an ouburst which the whole of Australia is likely to agree with for once, the Greens leader said: “Our job is not to compare ourselves with ... (the) obscene salaries of some of the big bank executives, but with what hard-working teachers or senior echelons in the defence forces, the police force, the nursing profession are getting.”

Strong words. But let’s play devil’s advocate for a moment. Maybe these guys do deserve it. Let’s examine some of the conditions which would normally attract an oversized wage and see how many of those boxes politicians tick.

Supremely long hours? Tick. Working away from home for weeks at a time? Tick. Extreme stress? Tick. Lack of privacy? Tick.

No, politicians do not face the prospect of death on each shift, as miners and oil riggers and comedians do. But otherwise, their jobs share a fair few traits with jobs that tend to attract the big bucks.

The flipside is that politcians are nothing more than glorified public servants. Indeed, in this age of focus group-driven policy, it’s often hard to grasp what they actually do for a living.

Federal Labor MP Richard Marles once wrote in a memorable Punch column that he is putting on weight due to all the functions he has to attend. Get crumbs on his shirt and he’s a glutton. Eschew the food and he’s rude. He can’t win.

All the same, death by caramel slice is hardly a hardship. Politicians work bloody hard, but it’s difficult to argue they deserve a big, in-your-face salary boost before Christmas. Or is it?

Most commented

429Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
333Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
265Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

94 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Alf says:

      11:39am | 02/12/11

      If Gillard was paid on performance, she would owe taxpayers a refund.

      Reply

    • Horns Up says:

      01:07pm | 02/12/11

      She’s kept Abbott out of office, so she’s worth every cent.

      \m/

    • Joan says:

      01:46pm | 02/12/11

      Horns Up : Gillard gonna cost Australians multimillions dollars and jobs with her Carbon Tax on everything.  Who said cheats never prosper?  Gillard rips mega dollars from every Ozzie and tops up her pay packet.  Backstabbing, lying to electorate and promoting the disreputable the new standard for wage top up.  That`s some act. This is no time to top up any pollies wage, especially at this time when respect is at an all time low for pollies.

    • Horns Up says:

      02:22pm | 02/12/11

      @Joan

      “Gillard gonna cost Australians multimillions dollars and jobs with her Carbon Tax on everything”

      Complete garbage. The modelling says the Carbon Tax will have less impact than the GST which was barely felt at all.

      \m/

    • KH says:

      02:30pm | 02/12/11

      Speaking of Dr No - where is his outrage about these pay rises?  Oh right, it benefits him (and I bet he is hoping he will be the recipient of the mega PM salary at some point)..................

    • Cate says:

      02:41pm | 02/12/11

      I agree.  Refund the taxpayers. Give our essential services the payrises they deserve. Increase the aged pension by $200.00 per week and let everbody have access to it without a means test, as the Superanuation fiasco has clearly failed. Bring the retirement age back down to 55 and be sensible.  We only get to live once, and then karma could send us anywhere.  This country is no longer lucky as you will only be lucky if you survive.

    • skinny1 says:

      02:50pm | 02/12/11

      Gillard has only received her rise in order to receive a bigger payout early next year when she is likely to get the boot!!

    • Alf says:

      03:20pm | 02/12/11

      @Horns up.
      “She’s kept Abbott out of office”

      Yep…tha’s about all she is doing.

    • Loddlaen says:

      11:40am | 02/12/11

      Put it in context to how the economy is doing and what is happening with the budget. I think it’s obvious they don’t deserve one. (I’m neither left or right wing)

      Reply

    • KH says:

      02:29pm | 02/12/11

      What planet are you living on?  Australia is in one of the best positions in the world.  Most people would rather be here than the US, UK or Europe.

    • Kheiron says:

      05:05pm | 02/12/11

      Yes, KH, we are the sparkliest pile of sh*t in the backyard. Can’t say the bar’s set very high at this point, can we?
      I don’t care if you’re diffusing nuclear bombs in daycare centres or a full time carer for retired/disabled police dogs I can’t think of any reason for anyone to cop a 90k pay rise.
      What, pray tell, is so different this year compared to last year that suddenly requires another ~20% in the PMs back pocket?
      The rest of us have to kick and scratch to get an increase just to keep up with inflation and our lives aren’t getting any easier…

    • JS says:

      11:42am | 02/12/11

      I work in a call centre and i think i deserve a pay rise for the simple act of having to put up with people.

      When you think about the level of abuse politicians cop simply for believing differently to someone else, i think they deserve the pay rise.

      some people in this country need to learn how to take no as an answer

      Reply

    • Simonious says:

      11:48am | 02/12/11

      I would like to see our pollies on a reasonable package with performance based bonuses with real measurable KPIs based on customer satisfaction. ie: how well their constituents think they have performed. Other KPIs could include how many parliament sessions they attend, bills they introduced and how much money they can save in the department they have a ministerial position in.

      Reply

    • Mahhrat says:

      12:38pm | 02/12/11

      A thousand times, this.

      Somebody give Simonious more internets.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      01:01pm | 02/12/11

      @Simonius. KPIs are a bunch of bullshit. They are only statistics and statistics can be massaged, manipulated and made up. This happens in the public service every day. KPIs have nothing to do with real leadership and are detrimental to implementing hard decisions and real reforms.

    • Simonious says:

      01:29pm | 02/12/11

      Shane while i agree KPis in some roles can be bullshit some are not. Thats why i used the term “real Measurable KPIs”. I am in Sales and their is one KPI I cant massage or dick around with and thats my GP figure. Total sales less cost of goods and that what I get paid on. Surely something that tracks performance is better than nothing. Maybe they only get paid a bonus if there has been no blowouts in costs of any projects or programs they are managing or departments they have under their ministerial portfolio.

    • Mahhrat says:

      01:31pm | 02/12/11

      @Shane, it depends on how robust the KPIs are and who sets them.

      If you allow the PS to set their own, of course they’re going to be dodgy.  I know, I am a PS officer.

      If they’re set by an independent committee though, then they tend to be far better.

    • Jane2 says:

      01:50pm | 02/12/11

      I agree with the days attending. I am always amazed at the number of empty seats in every session of parliment. Most days they are lucky to achieve 50% attendence in the house.

      For every other Australian if we are absent from our desk or an important meeting without a medical certificate we get our pay docked, Imthinking this rule needs to impossed on teh pollies as well.

    • KH says:

      02:37pm | 02/12/11

      Why don’t we just run a poll every day as a KPI? 

      This kind of ‘measurement’ would even further discourage long term thinking - great policy doesn’t always have a short term gain.  The last thing we need is to further encourage politicians to only think as far as the next election.

    • wayne says:

      11:49am | 02/12/11

      Considering how much public scrutiny they are under, I don’t begrudge them their incredibly large salaries.  I do not however believe that a 20+% payrise is justified, especially considering the savings that public servants are being forced to find.
      The Remuneration Tribunal has some questions to answer….....

      Reply

    • old fart says:

      12:01pm | 02/12/11

      The Remuneration Tribunal has some questions to answer

      as if

    • Al says:

      11:50am | 02/12/11

      The problem with this article, like many others, is that it focuses on the Annual Salary, and ignores the benefits that are being removed.
      Which costs more, the additional salary or the benefits such as the Gold travel pass for the rest of their lives?
      I think you will find that the increased salary is more than compensated for by the removal of additional entitlements.

      Reply

    • gobsmack says:

      12:15pm | 02/12/11

      My understanding is that the gold travel pass is only being removed for future MPs.

    • Chris_D says:

      11:53am | 02/12/11

      I’d rather have competency based pay scales, and progress payments as an incentive scheme.  This would ensure that politicians and their parties, who are elected on a platform of what they plan to do, their goals, projects or other aims and ambitions, must be met within the timeframes as laid out in their campaigns.  If they do what they claim they are going to do, within the budget the state and within a reasonable time frame, then they should be rewarded with a financial incentive. 

      In other words, much like the private sector works.

      Reply

    • Esteban says:

      12:11pm | 02/12/11

      If there was competency based pay scales Wayne Swann would be having money taken out of his bank account every payday instead of having it paid in

    • jf says:

      12:30pm | 02/12/11

      Esteban says:01:11pm | 02/12/11

      “If there was competency based pay scales Wayne Swann would be having money taken out of his bank account every payday instead of having it paid in”

      And therein lies the problem with paying politicians for performance.

      Just as with large companies, performance based pay can lead to short-termism and perverse decisions.

      I think this Government, and Swann in particular, are terrible. However, there are plenty that think that they are doing a wonderful job.

      Even where policy is subjective, it is subject to massive external influence. Australia’s economy is currently in terrrific shape and so nominally Swann would be in line for a big fat performance bonus. In my view, Australia’s economy is in great shape despite Swann and thanks to (a) a wonderful economic legacy left by Costello and (b) right place, right time in relation to China’s industrialisation and need for what we have.

    • Wynston Cruso says:

      01:10pm | 02/12/11

      You mean, they would actually have to do something to earn their money? Crazy talk Chris_D

      I think in the least, in order to deserve any kind of pay packet, that our politicians should, oh I dunno, represent the Australian people as per their PD. They don’t, and so this pay increase is a massive kick in the balls.

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      11:54am | 02/12/11

      No, of course they don’t.  They fall asleep in parliament half the time and most of the backbenchers do little except spout the company line, rock up at a few openings of this or that and send out canned responses to any questions they’re asked.  But, who’s going to stop them?  They can do whatever the hell they want and there’s nothing we can do.  They have the military, the have the police the judiciary and we have apathy, sport and big TVs.  The last protest held about inequality etc… ended up with people being hauled away, so…yep.

      Personally, I’m looking at options for getting in on the trough.  Can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

      Reply

    • Abu The Goat Boy says:

      12:09pm | 02/12/11

      Hi Tim, Hop on over to the AEC website. You will find some good publications over there for candidates and their key support people.

      If you really want to make a change you may be best to stand as an independent. That way you won’t have to spout the company line.

      Having been involved on the peripheries of politics there is not enough money in the world to get me to run for public office at any level.

      If you really do think it is all about “rocking up to a few openings” etc then it may be worthwhile rocking up to your local MP’s office and volunteering for a while. Maybe just open the mail or answer the phones. You won’t have to do it for long. You will come away with a whole different perspective - promise.

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      12:15pm | 02/12/11

      Cheers Abu, I’ll do that.  Advice always appreciated smile

    • Tubesteak says:

      11:54am | 02/12/11

      “Supremely long hours? Tick. Working away from home for weeks at a time? Tick. Extreme stress? Tick. Lack of privacy? Tick.”

      Wrong Wrong Wrong.

      Big salaries accompany big profits and the people that earn those profits.

      An investment banker that earns the company $50m will be rewarded a percentage of that earning. That is what makes their income look big.

      Law firm partners can earn 7 figures (full equity partner at top-tier law firm) because they bill 8 figures.

      What profits do politicians make? What dividends can we see?

      I think Bob Brown was right.

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      12:32pm | 02/12/11

      Using that logic, shouldn’t Ministers who make the biggest cuts to service, and thus, the Government’s bottom line, be paid a percentage?

    • Tubesteak says:

      12:45pm | 02/12/11

      As is always the case, Zeta, you don’t run a business by cutting costs. You do it by generating revenue.

      Cutting costs to make the bottom line look better is the lazy person’s way of doing it. Especially if it is done by cutting services.

    • jf says:

      12:51pm | 02/12/11

      Both are still over-paid. However, their jobs are there for anyone to take if they want them.

    • Civvie says:

      11:55am | 02/12/11

      It’s 20-something% since 2007.. which is 6-7% per year.

      Given they instructed the federal public service to stick to 3% a year they should also have done so by example.
      That said - it gives any public sector agencies currently at the bargaining table some extra ammunition. “Pollies got 6% - we only want 4” - or similar.

      Reply

    • Peter says:

      11:56am | 02/12/11

      It’s an interesting question.  But, again, it’s not a “dilemma”.  Please, guys, week and after week you pose interesting questions which you think are “dilemmas” because their controversial or relate to a moral issue or something.  This does not make them dilemmas.

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      11:59am | 02/12/11

      If we were serious we’d admit that our pollies are severely underpaid for the work they do.
      But just like the community sector workers that got massive pay rises recently, they should realise that money is a small part of the enjoyment of their work.

      They aren’t there for the money, they do it because most of them are power hungry egomaniacs.

      Reply

    • old fart says:

      11:59am | 02/12/11

      performance based pay scales and demonstrated efficiencies, promotion on merit principles, like the rest of the people who work for them.

      Reply

    • P. Darvio says:

      12:02pm | 02/12/11

      Its not the pollies fault - its your (our) fault - if you don’t like what they are paid don’t vote for any of them at the next election. These salaries are chicken feed in comparison to the real waste in Government expenditure.

      Reply

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      12:22pm | 02/12/11

      “if you don’t like what they are paid don’t vote for any of them at the next election. “

      They fine you if you do that.

    • P. Darvio says:

      01:15pm | 02/12/11

      Quote: They fine you if you do that.

      ...vote informal….if 10 million people did that they would get the message…and no fine.

      Remember the 38% informal vote during a past tasmanian election at the hight of the Dams debate?

    • Abu The Goat Boy says:

      02:28pm | 02/12/11

      So long as the voter has their name marked off the elctoral role and actually casts an invalid vote that is a great idea. Make sure you have a look at “Albert Langer” and Section 320A of the Electoral Act (Cwlth) and be certain to stop the encouragement once an election has been called.

      It would be interesting to see what would happen if one, even one electorate returned no valid votes in a Federal election. Pretty sure everybody would be back to voting again but it would still be intereting to see the reactions.

    • KH says:

      02:32pm | 02/12/11

      Oh brilliant.  Yes vote informal.  Then we can have a government voted for by a small % of people.  Brilliant.  We can be just like America.

    • john says:

      12:04pm | 02/12/11

      Swany just the day before said less for you, he pleaded {looked like begging} for a surplus.

      The day after the government implied YaY more for us. go figure.

      Tony Abbott, supposedly a self proclaimed righteous person,  the leader of the noalition for the first time in living memory said “yes”.

      Why didn’t he stand up for what’s right to claim some credibility and say NO to the absurd pay rise and that crusty Simon Crean had the outrageous insolence of stating on ABC TV that pollies don’t earn much? 

      Seems the government has already taken lessons from the speaker- slippery Peter.

      ...‘drum roll’..... and the winners of the suckers award goes to…...wait for it…...the…..

      Australian people especially the media for taking such a soft line   smile

      Reply

    • Anubis says:

      01:43pm | 02/12/11

      @ john - whether he said yes or no is irrelevant. The Labor Party set up the “independent” tribunal after Kevvy Rudd froze polly’s pay rates. This had the effect of politicians being able to distance themselves (ha) from these decisions. It also means that whether they agree or disagree with the pay rise it will still get deposited in to their accounts.

      The whole “independent” tribunal is just another conga line of Labor party suckholes who would not deny pay increases because it would mean that their position at the public trough would be at risk.

      What hasn’t been highlighted so far is that the payrates of pollys are linked to the pay rates of upper level Public Servants so - the polly’s get a pay rise -> the Paper Pushers get a payrise, and vice versa. Which makes it an even bigger imposition on a budget that apparently is already under strain due to profligate spendig and the urgent desire to make themselves look good in an election year by producing an illusory budget surplus.

      Any one here seen the news report that says that Penny Wong is now making wiggle room for them to NOT make their promised Budget Surplus (but mind you this doesn’t mean the proposed cuts won’t go ahead)

    • Anubis says:

      02:36pm | 02/12/11

      @ faxman - read the document you posted

      “From 5 December 1999, following the enactment of the Government’s public service reform legislation, the Tribunal has a formal role in advising the Minister for Finance and Administration on an appropriate base salary for Senators and Members of the Federal Parliament. The Tribunal cannot issue a determination on this matter – it can only provide advice, as it does on the additional salaries payable to Ministers. The Government can choose to accept or reject the
      Tribunal’s advice on these matters and must undertake the necessary action to bring the Tribunal’s recommendations into force.”

      The labor Party changes to the Tribunal that I referred to did away with the Government’s ability to reject Tribunal pay rise increases for MP’s.

      This from the RemunerationTribunal Website

      “Determinations made under subsections 7(1), 7(1A), 7(2) and 7(4) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 (the Act), which deal with allowances for members of parliament (including base pay), ministers of state and related matters, cannot be disallowed by the Parliament, with effect from 5 August 2011.”

      So this amendment to the Act under which the Tribunal operates specifically removes the ability of the Parliament to reject a payrise. Note the date of effect of the Amendment - 5 August 2011. Hmmm, now let me think, which Party held Government when that came in to effect?

      As I said the Labor Party set up the “Independent” Tribunal

    • Faxman says:

      03:53pm | 02/12/11

      Tribunal “set up after Rudd froze rates”? Ho Ho Ho.

      Tsk Tsk. Set up in the 70s.

      Typical Liberal. Can’t even read your own “quotes”.  Fricken fraud.

    • old fart says:

      12:06pm | 02/12/11

      have you had a look at the “independant ” body?  Membership is made up of company directors, bet they all go silent on executive salaries in the near future.

      You scratch my back I’ll scratch yours hey girls and boys

      Reply

    • old fart says:

      12:06pm | 02/12/11

      have you had a look at the “independant ” body?  Membership is made up of company directors, bet they all go silent on executive salaries in the near future.

      You scratch my back I’ll scratch yours hey girls and boys

      Reply

    • GB says:

      12:14pm | 02/12/11

      It doesn’t send a great message, especially given the current climate, but the salaries themselves are actually lower than what I would have expected, Does anybody know if they PAYG like the rest of us or are these tax free dollars? It makes a big difference.

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      12:33pm | 02/12/11

      They’re subject to the same tax rates as the rest of us - only their Electoral Allowances are tax free, and only if they’re spent on specific things, like stationary, printing, tickets to community events etc - and if they don’t spend it all, it contributes to their taxable income.

    • GB says:

      01:11pm | 02/12/11

      Gotcha. Thanks Zeta,

    • Shooter says:

      12:15pm | 02/12/11

      I better you Tony will not be saying ‘NO” to this one. I also bet he waont be reversing this when he gets into power

      Reply

    • Anon says:

      12:16pm | 02/12/11

      I work for an MP, and I can vouch for the fact that they *never stop working*, and never stop working *hard*, except when they’re asleep, and occasionally not even then. Nor do they get to see their families very often, trips to Canberra not counted.

      The renumeration rise is justified.

      Reply

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      12:25pm | 02/12/11

      What exactly are they doing?

    • hot tub political machine says:

      12:29pm | 02/12/11

      I previously worked for an MP and can second this comment about them working hard. Always out at functions rather than being where they would choose to be (most likely they would choose asleep). Arguably a payrise is just – it certainly is if you look at the hours worked – if you worked those hours outside of politics you could get paid much more.

      However I still disagree with the payrise because 1) Its terrible timing with the GFC and Joyce. 2. Politics need not pay well.

      Another staffer I knew who is now an MP is scathing of high pay for MP’s. Simply because he believes plenty of pay will attract people who are attracted to plenty of pay. Is an MP’s pay fair for the amount of pay? Hell no. Should it be? Again Hell no.

      An MP’s salary is enough to live very comfortably and provide for others at the same time. So anymore money is about desire. And no one should work for the nation if their motivation is money.

    • Anon says:

      01:09pm | 02/12/11

      Well.. I suppose the question is, do we want to attract MPs with business miens and acumen, and the will to run the country as a successful business? We need to be able to pay them to do that, or pay people who already have.

      People also forget that us staffers work nearly as hard as our members, and get paid bugger all wink

    • hot tub political machine says:

      02:36pm | 02/12/11

      I think we do want a certain number with business acumen – for example the treasurer should either have some business nous or at the very least the intelligence to follow the advice of experts. Business skills are one set of skills, if MP’s govern for all people we need a broad skill set. Professionals, communicators, educators are necessary as well as business people.

      We should be careful to separate the business of government from the business of business and we should not run the public service departments for profit. Ideally you want an MP who has so much money already they couldn’t possibly be in it for the perks. This is one of the reasons Turnbull gets a reasonable amount of trust in the electorate despite some trust damaging hiccups. He had so much money before he entered politics he can’t be bought.

    • nossy says:

      12:17pm | 02/12/11

      Pollie does deserve a cracker Punch team BUT certainly the PM should not be getting more money than the US President or the UK Prime Minister - strewth Gillard will soon be wanting her own Boeing 747 AIr force One! Whilst the populance will soon be picking the flesh off their tired old Wollies chook for Chrissy , washed down with a glass of tap water , Gillard, Abbott and Co will be dining on exquisite Turkey washed down with a vintage wine. Reminds me of a few days ago out on the boat off Southport with Reggie and Co and we were eating prawns and a nice white wine and Reggie said ( the heartless bastard) “Nossy what are the poor people doing today?”  hahahahahaha

      Reply

    • Michael says:

      12:31pm | 02/12/11

      lol, i like the way you got your paragraph to curve gently like that on the right hand side wink

    • Esteban says:

      12:47pm | 02/12/11

      Nossy did Mater and Pater not have that talk with you about it being vulgar to discuss money that way?

      However I should not expect anything less from someone who calls himself “nossy” which, according to the urban dictionary, means “someone who thinks they have a big package”

      Have fun over summer comparing packages and bank balances with Reggie but try to remeber to pack your lunch so you don’t get pissed on sweet ladies wine and end up eating the bait again.

    • john says:

      12:51pm | 02/12/11

      @Michael “i like the way you got your paragraph to curve gently like that on the right hand side”

      not sure if intentional or accident, but its something I haven’t seem in decades. Its a skill and only someone with highly developed written skills and with a high degree of mastery in the english language can do whilst delivering an accurate message.

      Usually I bag nossy, but im uncertain whether to give him credit for this accidental stunt or marvellous piece of written artwork.

    • nossy says:

      12:55pm | 02/12/11

      @john a lifteime spent in Advertising John and you pick up a few skills.

    • Esteban says:

      12:58pm | 02/12/11

      John,  Look up “Nossy” in the urban dictionary then look at Nossie’s post a few metres from the screen.

      This is no accident.

    • nossy says:

      12:58pm | 02/12/11

      @Esteban life wasnt always good Esteban - in 1971 Daddy took my allowance away and locked my MGB in its garage for a week! We have all known tough times Esteban!

    • Esteban says:

      01:31pm | 02/12/11

      I suspect in 1971 a young fit but bored man was grounded in his room by himself doing what young men do under those circumstances when at the point of climax a Gough Whitlam speach was aired on the wireless.

      Much to Daddy’s disappointment the freakish timing of the incident altered (damaged) critical neuron paths and your politics veered left and have remained there ever since.

      At least I understand your hatred of Abbott. Even I would not be able to do that thing you do during an Abbott speach!

    • nossy says:

      03:52pm | 02/12/11

      @Esteban I love Abbott you dillusional goose! Blogs are modern day theatre something sadly you havnt as yet cottoned on to girlie! One plays to the masses. Now run along and practise your hatred elewhere little man!

    • NicoleG says:

      05:16pm | 02/12/11

      Esteban, why be so horrid to nossy? He’s never horrid to anyone. Double up on nasy pills today do you?

    • nossy says:

      07:46pm | 02/12/11

      @NicoleG thanks Nicole - level headed as usual - poor Esteban must have gotten out of the wrong side of the bed!  hahahahha

    • hot tub political machine says:

      12:22pm | 02/12/11

      This is kinda like Joyce’s payrise. Poor timing.

      Reply

    • GB says:

      03:49pm | 02/12/11

      Yeah but at least Joyce’s is linked to performance. This lot get theirs whether they do a shit job or not.

    • Zeta says:

      12:28pm | 02/12/11

      My view, for what its worth, is that backbench MPs get paid slightly too much, while the Executive get paid slightly too little.

      If MPs, god forbid, had a union, (and since half of them are from the Coalition, I imagine it would be the second most dysfunctional union ever, after the HSU), and they went to the Industrial Relations Commission for an Award, how do you think that would go down?

      You have basically a contract job, for three years, after which you have to go through a selection process that would be illegal in any other industry.

      Imagine you’re a nurse, and every few years you had to reapply for your own job by asking every single paitent, not just those you personally met, but every paitent who went to your hospital to rate your performance ‘yes’ or ‘no’, and you were competing for that job with other people who didn’t even work with you, but are claiming they could do a better job than you.

      I imagine in that circumstance an independent arbiter would award a higher wage, especially when you consider that if anyone even makes a public suggestion of wrong doing against you, it doesn’t have to proved, and you can simply be asked to resign.

      How are you supposed to attract anyone of sound mind to that job unless it pays a wage comparable to that which the individual could earn in the private market? Or even in the public sector? Fact is, a lot of public service jobs have fewer accountabilities and longer terms than a position in Parliament, and are paid more.

      If Bob Brown wants to compare Nurses, Teacher and Police with being a politician, he should do some research. A Senior Police Officer in NSW, with the equivalent responsibilities for policy management a Minister has, actually earns more than a Minister earns. Plus overtime and penalties, a Senior Sergeant makes more money than a back bench MP, they’re renumerated as such because of the risk their job poses.

      For a Nurse, the only significant risk they could face is stress related injury and the chance of litigation - for which they’re insured.

      No MP in the country could take out litigation insurance. An insurer would laugh you out of town. If you get pinged by the ICAC, or dragged in front of a Royal Commission, you’re rat f***ed to put it mildly unless you were independently wealthy to begin with. Police get up to $1500 a day in legal fees covered by their Union. Pollies have no such protection.

      It’s a bit rich of the chattering underclasses to demand world class industrial rights for people who clean up shit, while demanding no rights for people who make major decisions about our Nation’s spending and security and wear the responsibility for those decisions, often to the detriment of their own careers.

      Reply

    • John Smythe says:

      02:20pm | 02/12/11

      Zeta, only issue I have with this is with the last sentence. None of our politicians are held accountable in the same ways. Correct me if I’m wrong, and this is what I believe has given birth to the “career polly”, once they serve minimum term, they get guaranteed kickbacks there-after.

      As long as they stay in for a bare minimum term…what is required of them for accountability? Votes at the next election?

    • Jordan says:

      07:32pm | 02/12/11

      Well said, Zeta.

    • S.L says:

      01:02pm | 02/12/11

      I think looking at Obama’s salary isn’t really a true reflection on what he earns. His perks and what he will get when he’s out of office far outway ours or Britians PM.

      Reply

    • Cate says:

      01:07pm | 02/12/11

      The current Members are:
      Mr John Conde AO – President - appointed on 19 June 2008 as Member and President for five years from 25 June 2008. Mr Conde was originally appointed as a member of the Remuneration Tribunal on 18 June 1998. Mr Conde is the Chairman of Ausgrid (formally EnergyAustralia). He is also Chairman of Bupa Australia Health Pty Ltd, Chairman of Whitehaven Coal Limited, Chairman of the Sydney Symphony, Chairman of Destination New South Wales and associated entities. He is a Director of Dexus Property Group and Chairman of the Dermatology Research Foundation at the University of Sydney and sits on the parent entity, Sydney Medical School Foundation. Mr Conde is also a member of the Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network Board.

      Mr Conde is Chairman of the Australian Olympic Committee (NSW) Fundraising Committee.

      Positions previously held include Director of BHP Billiton and Excel Coal Limited, Managing Director of Broadcast Investment Holdings Pty Limited, Director of Lumley Corporation, President of the National Heart Foundation of Australia. 

      Mr John B Prescott AC – appointed from 25 February 2010 for five years. Mr Prescott is Chairman of QR National Limited and a Director of Newmont Mining Corporation.  He is Global Counsellor of The Conference Board (USA), and a member of President’s Circle, AustralAsia Centre, Asia Society. Mr Prescott was previously Chairman of ASC (formerly Australian Submarine Corporation Pty Ltd) from 2000 to 2009 and from 1991 to 1998 was Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of BHP.

      Ms Jillian Segal AM – appointed from 12 April 2010 for 5 years. Ms Segal is a Director of the National Australia Bank Limited, a Director of ASX Ltd and Deputy Chancellor of the University of New South Wales. Ms Segal is also Chairman of the General Sir John Monash Foundation and a Director of the Garvan Institute for Medical Research. Formerly, she was President of the Administrative Review Council and Deputy Chair of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Prior to that Ms Segal sat on a number of industry and government boards and was a partner in Allen Allen & Hemsley (now Allens Arthur Robinson).

      The fees and allowances of Remuneration Tribunal Members are set by regulation Remuneration Tribunal (Members’ Fees and Allowances) Regulations 2005 made under the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. The latest regulation can be found on the Comlaw website.

      Are these people truly benign and independent.  Who selected them?  They all seem to have far too many
      fingers in pies and vested interests. Mmmmmm
      The Pollies will be on holidays and the essential services will be working their butts off.  So who really deserves the Christmas payrise?  I find the answer extremely obvious. My opinion is get rid of the perks and dump the obscene payrise. The taxpayers your employers cannot afford them.

      Reply

    • Chris_D says:

      01:29pm | 02/12/11

      Just looking at some comments, specifically about how long pollies hours are, how long they are away from home (usually in Canberra).  Compare this to ADF personnel who might be OS for 6 months of the year, often work 12 hour days when on duty/active service, and also literally are putting their lives on the line for their country.

      Get some perspective.

      Reply

    • Jordan says:

      07:25pm | 02/12/11

      I have the utmost respect for ADF personnel, and imagine many of them are probably underpaid.

      But I don’t think you are getting what “long hours” means.

      I’ve known senior politicians, and when really, really under the pump, they and their staff work 17-18 hours a day, 13-14 days a fortnight, for periods of months.

      Now ultimately most people become less effective if they push to that point - in fact Kevin Rudd’s office notoriously operated like this right from the start of his tenure which some people was a big part of his downfall.

    • JC says:

      01:31pm | 02/12/11

      The only question I would like to ask Gillard:  “Do you truly believe you deserve to have a larger pay then the president of the United States”.

      I would expect or at least hope the awnser is “No”

      Reply

    • Dan says:

      01:39pm | 02/12/11

      Pollies do deserve more money, but not right now - bad look in the current circumstances. The Ministry in particular, should knock back any rise in the national interest. They might just win a few brownie points.

      Reply

    • Jane2 says:

      02:07pm | 02/12/11

      My issue with the pay rise is for most people to earn anywhere near that sum they need both experience and qualifications, however to be a pollie your only qualification is to when a popularity contest.

      Most people think of pollies as people who have long careers and lots of experience behind them but this isnt so. At the last election we had 25 seats filled by people under 25, the youngest was voting in his first ever election, living at home and had no university qualification. Can you honestly say that a 20yo, regardless of their dreams, is qualified to make decisions that effect the entire country? He didnt even know how expensive it was to live out of Mum & Dad’s place. Does he deserve to be earning almost $200,000 a year?

      Would Ms Hanson? She has experience running a business but I can guarantee the $200,000 is more than the profits from the business.

      $200,000 automatically puts all poliiticians in the top 1% of earners in Australia and most do not have the experience or backgrounds to justify that sort of pay. It would be great if they were all extremely educated and or had run large successful companies but reality is teh wage of a politician is well above the maximum they could earn in the real world.

      Reply

    • Horns Up says:

      02:31pm | 02/12/11

      The other side of that is if you under pay pollies you are less likely to attract quality people and the likelihood fo corruption increases.

      \m/

    • Jordan says:

      07:31pm | 02/12/11

      Its probably worth restricting parliament to 25+ year olds and cabinet posts to 35+ year olds, say. Many democracies now and historically have had such restrictions.

      Qualifications requirements are… tough. For example, the like of Steve Gates and Bill Jobs who dropped out of Uni to become entrepreneurs - would they be allowed to run for office?

    • thatmosis says:

      03:00pm | 02/12/11

      If we seriously look at it, then NO, they dont deserve a rise in pay as the Government has for the last couple of years presided over the greatest list of policy failures that it has ever been Australias misfortune to have. They have squandered billions, lost lives, lost homes and businesses and if they were in the private sector would have been sacked years ago. They do not listen to the majority of the electorate but only to those that can keep them in power thereby imposing taxes on the people of Australia under false pretences and finding more and more ways to relieve the people of their money just to balance a budget that has blown out of all proportions. The simple answer NO, No a thusand times NO.

      Reply

    • ibast says:

      03:03pm | 02/12/11

      I wouldn’t do it for the money being offered.  The risk to income, what it does to families, the damage to my current career, the long hours, it’s just not worth it.

      Double it and I might think about it but at the moment it is peanuts compared to what they do.

      Reply

    • I, Claudia says:

      04:31pm | 02/12/11

      Do politicians deserve payrises? I don’t know. Would it be politically strategic for Gillard to refuse a payrise at this time? Absolutely.

      Reply

    • Against the Man says:

      07:03pm | 02/12/11

      But she knows she won’t be PM next time round so why not milk Australians for all she can before the trip home to Wales…........

    • Daniel says:

      06:01pm | 02/12/11

      I agree with Bob Brown here again and Greens. There is no need for any more allowances and payments to go to these greedy politicians.

      Reply

    • Vietnam Vet says:

      12:06am | 03/12/11

      I work with the RSL and reckon the people answering the phones there need a payrise. Yeah, there’s a few dickheads, but they do a bloody good job.

      Reply

    • NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

      07:55am | 03/12/11

      Hi Punch Team,

      After all, politicians work on behalf of the Australian Public, so tirelessly for that reason alone they do deserve “the best of the best”!! Somehow, I feel for them & would like to say why not??  They all suffer from repetitive strain injury, by just sitting in the Parliament House & work under such extreme levels pressure &  stress, very long hours indeed!! 

      They all sacrifice so much from their personal lives, by doing so much in so little time!!  Being away from their families is enough of a punishment by itself!!  So lets all be a little kind & generous to our Politicians & Leaders!!  Especially, around this time of the year which is extra special being Christmas & all that.  Best regards to your editors.

      Reply

    • Russ says:

      10:45am | 03/12/11

      It is NOT a pay-rise. It is compensation for scrapping the travel gold pass - which I think most people agree is a good thing.
      The problem is, like any other job, if you scrap someone’s entitlements in one area, you are expected to compensate them for that loss.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 25 May 12 10:37PM

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 10:00PM

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:58PM

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:52PM

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

by Claire Mallinson

14

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

by The Punch Team

50

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

by Tory Maguire

121

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed