Are Politicians 'Really' Underpaid

Trying2SaveABuck on 02/06/2022 - 21:57
Last edited 03/06/2022 - 00:43 by 1 other user

Looks like the general consensus was Nurses are well-underpaid teachers was more a mixed bag from polls being well in favor that they're 'fairly paid'

i had some requests for MPs so i looked into federal politicians - and straight off the bat im going to say majority of them are over-paid….they are certainly over-entilted to the point i was disgusted with how much our own politicians rip off the system….but that is just my opinion ill explain what i found

according to this source

https://icacpls.github.io/salary-breakdowns.html - note this source is from 2019

Majority of the MPs earn around 250k, members of cabinet and other positions like speaker of the house get a large 'bump' in there pay packet sitting around 380k, the Prime mister who compensation is on around 580k - this includes allowances given to MPs

NOW ill say this if they is all they got i would probably think the compensation is somewhat FAIR considering they could easily get voted out in 3 years and it is incredibility cut throat BUT the 'real' value of being a MP comes from an incredibly generous special 'pension' they get 'for life' according to this source https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_depart…

now this pension is 'that is not means tested' and is FOR LIFE how it is based on years of services.

'A retiring allowance is paid as a percentage of the minimum annual allowance payable at the time of retirement, currently $185 000 per annum.'

now depending on 'how many years of service' a MP has put in will determine how much of the 185k pa they will get 8 years is 50 percent up to 18 which is 75 percent

THUS ALL FEDERAL MPS who serve for 8 to 18 years will get a life time not means tested pension of 92-138k - keep in mind the 'average Australian' can only get around a pension after means testing of around 25k pa.

now there are 'other' benefits MPs who are retired get but you almost need to be a lawyer to understand all the BS they get away with and the 'more' i read the more it pisses me off and makes me think what a waste of tax dollars….

im actually disgusted how much these flogs get once they are 'retired' and how 'little' they have to do to get such entitlement but perhaps that is just me what do you guys think.

to put it into contect a retire MP who has the max special pension allowance will get a PENSION that is in line with the 90th percentile of WORKERS earnings pa.

WTF Australia…..

Poll Options

  • 561
    MPs are over-paid
  • 49
    MPs are paid fairly
  • 23
    MPs are under-paid
Education & Work

Comments

  • CrispyChrispy on 02/06/2022 - 21:58
    +30

    Still on this train huh

      • avoidfullprice on 02/06/2022 - 23:25
        +13

        Repetitive would be my guess.

        Repetitive.

      • smartazz104 on 03/06/2022 - 13:29
        +2

        I'd like to know the names of people asking the question "are politicians underpaid"? Maybe the next topic could be "Are OzBargainers overpaid?"

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 03/06/2022 - 13:49
          +4

          Maybe the next topic could be "Are OzBargainers overpaid?"

          not going to do it again to many moaners on here Ozbargin has become a pretty toxic community

          • this is us on 03/06/2022 - 15:48

            @Trying2SaveABuck: Just step back and accept that you creating a second poll was a bed idea. It's annoying.

            You might have reasons to say it's a "pretty toxic community", but not having support for your second repetitive poll is not a reasonable motive.

            Also, I wouldn't stay too long in a toxic community… I'd just leave, or come back to check the deals without creating polls to be answered by the toxic community.

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 03/06/2022 - 16:27
              +2

              @this is us: community puts comments asking me to make a poll on MPs, i make poll…..community gets upset i make poll…if that isnt toxic af then i dont know what is

              said poll still gets at time of posting close to 300 votes…..

            • this is us on 03/06/2022 - 18:28

              @this is us: *bad

            • SlavOz on 05/06/2022 - 18:48

              @this is us: Mate if you don't like it, don't read or participate. What the hell is it with people who willingly click on a post, read it, then complain that it shouldn't exist?

        • Lord Fart Bucket on 03/06/2022 - 20:48

          Maybe the next topic could be "Are OzBargainers overpaid?"

          I was more thinking along the lines of "Is Trying2SaveABuck trying to save a buck or just filling up the forums with crap?"

      • moo on 03/06/2022 - 23:37

        I jumped on the downvoting bandwagon too. Time for you to jump on a diff train mate…

        • Miss B on 05/06/2022 - 19:26

          Next post: Are train drivers really underpaid? 🤔

    • supersabroso on 04/06/2022 - 15:43
      +4

      Look, obviously they are overpaid for the work they do. However, they are not overpaid at all due to their position of power.

      If we paid our politicians any less, they would be too vulnerable to corruption. It's important that we pay them very well in order for them to value their job compared to the bribes that they will definitely be propositioned with. For example, if someone only bribes you with 5x your annual salary it won't be worth it, but if it's 20x then they might consider it.

      • Harold Halfprice on 04/06/2022 - 15:50

        Exactly. Go to developing countries and bribes even for private sector workers are almost standard. I have colleagues who are engineers from the Philipines and they tell me that over there everyone's receiving shit under the table to get win business and gain contracts - gifts, perks whatever. Imagine what it'd be like with politicians

      • SlavOz on 05/06/2022 - 18:51

        But paying them more means that only rich people or corporations can afford to bribe them. So you're just giving even more power to the top 1% by pricing working class people out of the corruption market.

        The current state of our political system shows this to be true.

  • netjock on 02/06/2022 - 22:06
    +25

    Overpaid for the quality of people / candidates you get. Under paid if you want to have good people. Therefore the clowns you see right now and in the past.

    • EightImmortals on 03/06/2022 - 06:58
      -2

      Yeah, nah.
      Good people would do the job for free.

      Paying people huge salaries does not guarantee success whatsoever, look at how much corporate CEO's and bigwigs get paid even though they drive their companies into the ground or can only achieve the holy 'profit' by sacking people or lower the quality of the product or service somehow. And politics, like corporatism is very nepotistic with the farcical 'pre-selection' only being to people who have demonstrated their allegiance to the cause.

      But this of course misses the big question. Why do we need the kind of government that has to be in control of every minutia of our lives? How did what was basically supposed to be a service organisation to make sure the roads got paved and water comes out of the tap mutate into the horrendous faux-God that has to see everything you do and know where you are at all times, takes most of what you earn and from what's left you have to pay it for the privilege of living and go through your life begging leave to do pretty much anything?

      OK, boiled frogs and all that, but still.

      Societies are defined and (should be) directed by the people who live in them without any unfair influence being given (or taken through force or intimidation) to any particular sub group. We don't need different politicians, we need LESS politicians and we must get back to much smaller government. I mean it's probably too late for the west now anyway, we are clearly in the declining phase of the current cycle, I give it 10-15 years before we become another China (in terms of governance). Unless people start waking up, and while that has started to happen a little bit it is by no means near enough to affect the change we need to save ourselves.

      The country will not and cannot be fixed from the top down and will only be fixed from the bottom up, so probably not at all by the looks of it.

      Democracies historically pretty much always turned into dictatorships eventually and we have been seeing that going here for almost 50 years now but they really have their foot on the peddle over the last 3.

      But who cares right? Johnny Depp won his court case and there are so many other 'important' current things to support………

      • Zephyrus on 03/06/2022 - 11:00
        +3

        In the UK, they used to not be paid. It was a major win for the labour movement to make it a paid position.

        If it's unpaid, you only get people who can afford to do a job they don't get paid for, so all politicians were very wealthy beforehand.

        • EightImmortals on 03/06/2022 - 11:12

          I wonder how the interplay between parliament and the monarchy factored into that? To me it always seemed a conflict of interest having 2 governmental authorities in one society.

      • banana365 on 03/06/2022 - 13:52
        +3

        Good people would do the job for free.

        Rubbish. Anyone that can do a job for free clearly has enough money behind them to live off. You automatically exclude the overwhelming majority of the population if you think "good people would do the job for free". Putting aside whether I'd be good at the job, I currently earn a good wage. I would have to give up my current job if I were to become an MP. I would instantly drop to zero income, as would most people.

        Let's see how many people, good, bad or indifferent, would step forward to represent their electorate if they weren't to be paid. You'd end up with a bunch of Clive Palmer level entitled idiots.

        • EightImmortals on 03/06/2022 - 15:06
          -1

          Well if you were that good you would have made enough money in your working career that you wouldn't need any more if you decided to take on the challenge of politics. Besides, if you read the first part of my comment you would be part of a much smaller, less intrusive and controlling government so the time commitment shouldn't be as bad as it currently is, with a lot of that time spent shmoozing and trying to raise campaign funds.

          As for the connected super-money twits taking over yes we wouldn't want that either (see the USA for all the examples you could ask for). But there people in the community who have had a good career, have more than enough to get by yet aren't super-rich and disconnected from everyone else in the community. Unfortunately they are probably far too wise to want to get involved in politics anyway.

          In order to solve the dilemma I think we need to come up with an acceptable definition for what government should be with very tight controls to take action if it/they gets out of line. But then that what the constitution was for and fat lot of good that has done when they can just ignore it when it conflicts with their current agenda. So I guess we're going to have do it the hard way yet again.

          • banana365 on 03/06/2022 - 15:50
            +3

            @EightImmortals:

            Well if you were that good you would have made enough money in your working career that you wouldn't need any more if you decided to take on the challenge of politics

            So you equate "good" with "rich". I think it's pretty safe to ignore your views on the subject if you think there's a correlation between the two.

            • EightImmortals on 03/06/2022 - 16:10

              @banana365: No I don't, that was just your imagination telling you what you wanted to hear. :)

              • banana365 on 03/06/2022 - 17:35
                +1

                @EightImmortals: OK, so how do you explain your assertion that if you're good enough to be a politician then you would have made enough money not to need to earn any more? Explain how this can be interpreted in any way other than "let's keep the poors out of politics, leave it to the rich".

                • EightImmortals on 04/06/2022 - 07:52

                  @banana365: Your definition of 'rich' was "Clive Palmer level entitled idiots." Mine isn't.
                  And honestly, we don't really want dirt-poor bogans in power any more than we want the super-rich Clive Palmer types. Did you know there is a middle ground in most things?

                  Also stop twisting what I wrote, if you think I said something particular then please quote exactly what I wrote and your interpretation of it so I can clarify because I did not say that "if you're good enough to be a politician then you would have made enough money not to need to earn any more?" What I said was that if you have been successful in life and have enough money to live on then you wouldn't need to be paid (overpaid) to be a politician.

                  I'm not saying it's a perfect plan and we both know that it will never eventuate, it was merely my musing on how we could theoretically attract a better or moire competent type of people into politics, or as I stated, with a much smaller government put back in it's proper place a healthy society will mostly run itself anyway so the undue influence of ANY political 'leader' regardless of the size of their bank account would be null and void. True leaders don't rely on power and force and those that do use power and force to get their way need to be resisted at all costs. if you know noting else about history you should at least know what.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptu17q8N-Mo

                  • banana365 on 04/06/2022 - 14:23

                    @EightImmortals: Dirt poor = bogans. There's no need to twist what you say, you're doing a great job of reinforcing your viewpoint.

      • ATangk on 03/06/2022 - 16:01

        Why do we need the kind of government that has to be in control of every minutia of our lives?

        "Just privatise everything." Like energy, roads, transport.

        Some things yes, some things no.

        • EightImmortals on 03/06/2022 - 16:12

          Pretty sure those things are privatised in actuality but are (over)paid by government to do the work. When was the last time you saw a politician out paving a road? (Unless there were cameras around). And for the same reasons we need to curb government, we can't allow unbridled private enterprise either or we just end up back at the same place.

          • ATangk on 03/06/2022 - 16:24

            @EightImmortals: The labour might be but the government "owns" the road. Unlike the most recent toll roads, where we have to pay a toll for 30 or 50 years indexed at 2% or inflation whicher is higher.

      • digitalbath on 04/06/2022 - 16:46
        +2

        Nobody would do any job for free.

    • SlickMick on 03/06/2022 - 08:30

      It would see fair to me that we pay them whatever their salary was in the position they left. e.g. if an unemployed activist, they continue to get nothing. If they give up a law practice, don't make them sacrifice their income to serve.

      My wife was just telling me all these people having their salaries skyrocket by getting elected. Something seems wrong with that to me.

    • 2esc on 03/06/2022 - 08:47
      +1

      Totally agree.

  • yokel on 02/06/2022 - 22:08
    -2

    Attract politicians who have had life experience and have accumulated enough wealth to be comfortable. It shouldn’t be pay that attracts the best to public service. Where pay is set at right now makes sense to me. You cannot pay professionals peanuts. Opp back bench salary is however too much for a halfwit who just graduated from a staffer position.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 02/06/2022 - 22:11
      +7

      but do they deserve over 100k pa for life….
      i agree there salaries seem 'fair enough' but there special pension is pretty BS you could get into politics are 30 and essentially retire comfortably at 40….they work 10 years and there pension is like winning 'set for life'

      • yokel on 02/06/2022 - 22:17
        +3

        It’s a lot of work to get re-elected. Fair call though. Historically these pensions have been ridiculous.

      • freefall101 on 03/06/2022 - 10:45
        +5

        The pensions are gone, except for some old politicians they're all on super these days (a higher percentage, but still super). There's about a dozen left in Victoria out of the 128 MPs, for example, because it's only for anyone elected pre-2004.

        • Ponsonby on 05/06/2022 - 14:55

          You are right. The OP is wrong about pensions - the 2010 paper the OP referenced was clear that it was referring to an old federal parliamentary pension scheme applying only to the few current MPs that were elected before 2004.

      • Canberralad92 on 03/06/2022 - 17:07

        'no'

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 02/06/2022 - 22:19
      +7

      Attract politicians who have had life experience and have accumulated enough wealth to be comfortable.

      That's going to skew the political pool considerably. No representation of the working class, just an oligarchy. May as well just go to a full on monarchy.

      • yokel on 02/06/2022 - 22:34
        +2

        You know you can start on the bottom rung and work your way up to a comfortable life by 40. I’m arguing against the popular track of uni to staffer to MP, to me that’s anti working class. It’s hard to see how anyone can be effective who hasn’t done their time in the workforce/real world. It’s been decades since Keating who was a young MP that crushed it- seems he was a rare beast.

      • Caped Baldy on 03/06/2022 - 08:01
        +2

        That's going to skew the political pool considerably.

        and there's a shit load of property developers in local government

    • SydStrand on 03/06/2022 - 01:57
      -1

      Attract politicians who have had life experience and have accumulated enough wealth to be comfortable. It shouldn’t be pay that attracts the best to public service.

      Because this type of thinking has never led voters astray.

  • SF3 on 02/06/2022 - 22:11
    -3

    They shouldn't be paid, it should be an honor for them to serve our country. This is a role that needs passion, it shouldn't been seen as a job to get a paycheck.

    If the volunteer fire service isn't being paid, neither should they.

    • morse on 03/06/2022 - 03:28
      +8

      Would that not make it off limits for people who need an income for working full time? ie people who aren’t rich? MPs do pretty long hours which wouldn’t really allow for a person to get income elsewhere.

      The difference with volunteer firefighters is that they aren’t doing it full time so can work for income - though I do think there should be a scheme to support employers give paid leave for responding to emergencies and an additional Centrelink payment for those volunteering who are otherwise unemployed.

    • Hardlyworkin on 03/06/2022 - 09:13
      +2

      Comparing the occasional (though very important) job of a volunteer firefighter to a politician doesn't stack up. Should all public servants work for the honour of it too? Who needs money anyway!

    • pais on 03/06/2022 - 09:44
      +2

      This is one of those nice fluffy ideas that is completely impractical.

      Only if you were wealthy enough to forego income for four years would you enter politics. We could just build them a House of Lords and be done with it.

    • Zephyrus on 03/06/2022 - 11:01
      +1

      Historically, that was the case and only the wealthy became politicians because only they could afford to.

      The average person couldn't afford to do it and democracy is better when the average person can afford to get elected

      • Blitzfx on 03/06/2022 - 20:05

        And it led to the wealthy running the country, making policies which benefited the land owners and preventing the proletariat from ever rising up.

      • SlavOz on 05/06/2022 - 18:57

        lol the majority of top MPs and government officials are already rich to begin with anyway so your argument doesn't stack up.

        It's practically impossible to get elected in a top government position unless you have an insane marketing and lobbying budget.

        • Zephyrus on 05/06/2022 - 23:24

          Top MPs have been in the job a decade or 2, so they probably should be. For example, Albanese didn't have much when he was elected. No family wealth and had only worked a decent job for about a decade, not enough to stop working.

          A lot of them aren't well off and even those that are fairly well off might not be able to afford to not work at all.

          Do you think you can not work for 6 years (one senate term) or even longer if you get re-elected?

  • SnowDragon on 02/06/2022 - 22:12
    +5

    For the amount of "work" they actually do and their "benefits", MPs are on a fairly good wicket.

    IMHO MPs should be paid the median salary of their state/suburb because then they would at least give a shit about their constituents.

    • morse on 03/06/2022 - 03:40
      +1

      I like the idea of indexing their pay to that of constituents. That would get them motivated to address both unemployment and the minimum wage (wages in general). Just not linked to electorate so that member for Wentworth (or similar) doesn’t get an easy ride. I reckon they’d find a way to rort this though, eg excluding people on Centrelink benefits or working part time from the calculation.

  • AustriaBargain on 02/06/2022 - 23:26
    +11

    I think the idea is if you pay them enough then they won't be corrupt, but we know now that they will still be as corrupt as they want anyway. They will be corrupt even when there is no financial incentive, just to support the party or protect someone involved in politics in general. The money would be better spent detecting and prosecuting corruption on all levels, even minor "casual" corruption.

    • WT on 03/06/2022 - 07:32

      gold coast and lidcombe mayor are recent ones that come to mind

    • Other on 03/06/2022 - 16:30
      +1

      The biggest issue isn't corruption (even with Obeid (ironically ALP - who back a federal ICAC, while we had a state ICAC that allowed the corruption to occur)).
      In fact I would argue its a minimal issue.

      The biggest issue is corporations paying political donations.

      Thats why we have 4 banks, 2(+1) mining company, 1 Gas company & 1 Phone company literally running Australia's political system.

      I mean Woodside, a corporation, got, in a democracy, the Australian Government spy agencies, to spy for them.

      • AustriaBargain on 03/06/2022 - 18:13

        Don't forget 1 news corporation.

        And 2 million investment property owners. Why should our political system let the entire Australian housing market turn itself upside down just to enrich the 7% of the population who are involved in the buy to rent scheme?

        Money is the worst currency that ever grew among mankind. It sacks cities, drives men from their homes, teaches and corrupts the worthiest minds to turn base deeds.

        • Other on 03/06/2022 - 20:57

          News Corp is like the NRA - they have very little money in the political system - they are popular because they take positions people generally support.
          (like backing KRudd over Howard - do you remember that? - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-04-21/murdoch-endorses-rudd… and then not baking him, when he fell out of favour - exactly like with Malcom Turnbull).

          "And 2 million investment property owners. Why should our political system let the entire Australian housing market turn itself upside down just to enrich the 7% of the population who are involved in the buy to rent scheme?"

          90%+ of those investors own 1 property. They keep the market going for the 4 Banks, not for individual property investors.
          (you could argue ultra luxury real estate is much worse than investors, or overseas investors who should be banned from owning, if we are banned in their country).

          "Money is the worst currency that ever grew among mankind. It sacks cities, drives men from their homes, teaches and corrupts the worthiest minds to turn base deeds."

          If only we could barter with sheep. I could get one and trade it for like 70 coffees.

    • SlavOz on 05/06/2022 - 19:05
      -1

      The inverse of this theory is that if you pay MPs too much, only rich people and corporations can afford to bribe them. This is the way it currently is. Our entire political system is controlled by the money of a tiny group of elites at the top.

      Why not allow the humble middle or low class to control them as well? Working class people are less likely to abuse that power than corporations. A corporation will bribe for permission to avoid millions of dollars in tax or dump harmful waste into our waterways. What's the local Maccas worker going to do with his bribe money, get off a speeding ticket or jump the que at Centrelink? Oh my God the HORROR we can't have that!

      • AustriaBargain on 05/06/2022 - 21:11

        We should pay them nothing then even little kids could bribe them with their pocket money.

  • kanmen on 02/06/2022 - 23:26
    +1

    On the whole I agree that they are overpaid and generally quite privileged, however the other side of the argument is that often MP's spend large amounts of time in Canberra in Parliament, and often have late nights depending on what's being discussed in the chamber. It's especially hard if you have a young family, and why many have either resigned or taken a step back ie. Tim Hammond, Tanya Plibersek (both people who could have been future leaders)

    • Caped Baldy on 03/06/2022 - 08:02
      +1

      Yeah, nah.

      They sit in parliament for less than 100 days a year.

  • Mechz on 02/06/2022 - 23:55
    +2

    It only looks like they're overpaid because they don't do the job properly (for the people). If they did it would be fair compensation I think.

    • Commander Shepard on 03/06/2022 - 00:15
      +1

      Yeah. I tend to agree.

      Would I spend 20+ Years in politics. To then become the PM and earn $549,250 plus some benefits.
      Unless you were a universally loved PM. The baggage that comes with it isn't worth it.

      Money is not everything. I would prefer to earn a quarter of that amount and live a happy normal life.

      • EightImmortals on 03/06/2022 - 07:02
        +1

        You miss the point. OK the PM has to put up with a lot of crap for a few years but then as we have just seen with Morrison, you get to 'win' the election, and retire on full perks indexed for life! Being the PM isn't the real prize, losing the 'election' is.

        • Caped Baldy on 03/06/2022 - 08:04
          +3

          Lol. Scumo failed upwards.

          Most of the high ranking politicians end up getting cushy jobs in the private sector along with their absurd pensions.

          • Ultimate Gattai on 05/06/2022 - 14:04

            @Caped Baldy: It really amazes me that it did it so spectacularly (I suppose having most of the media in the country on your side helps), and he doesn't seem to care what people think of him, just amazing.

  • El cheepo on 03/06/2022 - 01:12
    +6

    Who would have thought there are 3 MPs on ozbargain?

  • Thrawn on 03/06/2022 - 07:47
    +9

    The special pension for MPs are long gone. MPs entering parliament after 2004 is no longer eligible. Very few current politicians are eligible.. even Scomo won’t get it

    MPs entering after 2004 gets the same super scheme as the rest of public servants

  • Leiothrix on 03/06/2022 - 08:08
    -3

    Really? What do you think they should be paid? Minimum wage? No wage?

    The current CEO of HP earns ~1.1 million USD and the company has an annual revenue of ~60 billion USD and has ~51000 employees.

    The prime minister of Australia earns ~550 thousand AUD on an GDP of ~1.3 trillion AUD and ~25 million people.

    Sounds like they're dreadfully underpaid to me.

    People just like to whine because they're jealous and have no understanding of what the job entails.

    • shaybisc on 03/06/2022 - 09:15
      +2

      Ever heard of public service? If your aim is to make big money you should not be a politician.

      Which brings me to the wage explosion of senior public servants. Is there any any evidence that this has produced a superior public service to the days when the mandarins were on relatively modest wages?

    • Caped Baldy on 03/06/2022 - 09:49

      The current CEO of HP earns ~1.1 million USD and the company has an annual revenue of ~60 billion USD and has ~51000 employees.

      The prime minister of Australia earns ~550 thousand AUD on an GDP of ~1.3 trillion AUD and ~25 million people.

      Bad analogy.

      People just like to whine because they're jealous and have no understanding of what the job entails.

      Ironically, the last guy had no understanding of what the job entails.

      • Leiothrix on 03/06/2022 - 10:15
        +1

        Why is it a bad analogy?

        Explaining how you think I'm wrong is helpful discussion. Insults not so much.

        • Caped Baldy on 03/06/2022 - 10:24
          +3

          Apologies, wasn't meant to be rude or anything.

          I just don't think that the PM contributes that much to the GDP when it's made up of the individual business leaders. So it shouldn't be used as a measure for salary.
          Most pollies seem to be in it for themselves and not their constituents. Seems to be the case for my local mayor at least.

          • Other on 03/06/2022 - 16:39

            @Caped Baldy: Treasury can make a big hit to GDP. Stimulus or deficit.
            The big ideas espoused by the PM are ring fenced.

            Did Howard taking on the unions make an impact?
            Did FHOG make an impact?

            I don't think its a bad analogy.

    • freefall101 on 03/06/2022 - 10:57
      +2

      There's a really good reason that ministers usually earn less than their department secretaries, they're not actually doing much work. They communicate between the department and parliament, guide it on the policy and things that are happening and stand in front of the media to deliver all the info on what's happening.

      Most of the MPs on the back bench just listen to complaints from their local constituents and do the bare minimum to get elected again.

      The PM doesn't run Australia. They setup the changes to laws that are going to be passed through parliament and set the agenda for the parliament. They technically just run a party, which has far less than 51k employees and 60b in revenue.

      • Caped Baldy on 03/06/2022 - 11:50
        +1

        I'd say they're the figurehead of running the party.

        Last guy couldn't stop people wanking on other people's desks and basically shrugged when people got raped and the country was burning.

        • Other on 03/06/2022 - 16:42
          -2

          He fired the guy, and the woman didn't press charges.
          Whats he meant to do - force her to press charges? Demand that she press charges or pass legislation to charge her if she fails to do so?
          Actually thats a great idea - if a woman alleges she got raped and does not press charges then she should be charged.
          Instantly it would make any woman more believable (one of the issues of metoo) and stop any false claims (which seems to be the biggest issue with mra's).

          As for the Holiday why didn't Albanese criticise him? WHY? Wonder why….

  • Ozbfan on 03/06/2022 - 08:33
    +3

    Perhaps the OP should read closer, that is a legacy and outdated scheme.

  • TheBird on 03/06/2022 - 08:44
    +1

    If you want good people you have to pay for them.

    I see the problem is you have the massive majority of people who are uneducated in politics choosing (through voting) who gets to serve in those positions. So instead of those who are either the most qualified or best for the job getting the positions, those who are popular / good at deceiving the general public are those who get these positions.

  • ForkSnorter on 03/06/2022 - 08:53
    +3

    While he was a federal politician, Greens Leader Bob Brown borrowed $100k from the bank to pay a ransom on a kidnapped Australian because the Australian Government wouldn't do it. He was already in debt at the time. Thankfully, he earned enough in his last few years of service to retire without any debt. I'm glad he was paid enough to do that.

    Having said that, some federal politicians—especially from the recent LNP gov't—are incompetent, unintelligent and untalented, lacking in knowledge, corrupt, small-minded, self-interested, unprincipled, and are quite happy to lie to millions of people and bully their colleagues. I think they are highly overpaid.

  • Jason Genova on 03/06/2022 - 09:05
    +1

    Next thread idea

    Does Trying2SaveABuck 'Really' care about issues of under/overpayment, or is he just trying to get his post count up?

  • infin on 03/06/2022 - 09:08
    +1

    they are way overpaid. they don't actually do any work, the public service and ministerial advisers do it all. I put them on par with a sale rep which just goes around meeting customers. and the additional perks from being minister or on committees it's just all gravy.

  • BigBirdy on 03/06/2022 - 09:22
    +3

    I want politicians who chose the job because they are interested in public service … building a better, fairer, happier, healthier Australia. This is more what politics in Australia was, perhaps 30+ years ago. Think Hawke, Whitlam, Curtin, Menzies, etc.
    I don't want those looking for a well paid job with lots of perks where they can gain fame, fortune and control other people's lives.
    The current pay (& culture) is attracting the latter group, who by virtue of their personality, do dodgy deals with lobbyists, and use parliament to enrich themselves and build a pathway into well paid compromised future employment. Citizens are treated, at best and often only in marginals, as customers requiring the barest of servicing to keep them from leaving

    • core101 on 03/06/2022 - 23:28

      Hawke, Whitlam hacked away at the constitution, giving themselves unauthorized power. The 1999 Republic referendum to legitimize their power failed. Every politician since has concealed the unauthorized removal of Queen, and they want a reward?

  • StingyBritches on 03/06/2022 - 09:45
    +2

    Up next:
    “Is OzBargain’s Scotty overpaid?”

  • Richmond Tigers on 03/06/2022 - 09:48

    All a bunch of asshats who are out for job preservation because hey, look at the perks.

    If pollies wanted to do right by the country, things like negative gearing on multiple properties would be gone. Exporting goods that we have to buy back at a higher price would be gone. All in on renewable or nuclear would have happened long ago. We would still have manufacturing. etc etc.

    • Hardlyworkin on 04/06/2022 - 09:13

      All of them? By that logic if you became a politician you too would be an asshat!

  • GordonD on 03/06/2022 - 10:00

    If its going to be the case that everyone else is paid according to how hard it is to attract someone to the job, and retain them, and replace them if they move on, then on that basis politicians are way overpaid. It is a job that there are any number of people fighting to get every available position, and fighting to replace anyone who leaves. Unlike, say, business executives, where you have to pay lots of money to attract people away from the current job, because they are primarily doing the job for the money, politicians aren't. These days politicians overwhelmingly seek the job because they believe certain things, and want the influence and power that having political power gives them to push the country in those directions.

    The problem with paying them a lot less would be that you might not get truly competent experienced and skilled administrators and decision makers to fill ministerial and prime ministerial positions. So maybe the ordinary parliamentarians should get a lot less, but ministerial positions should be filled differently than they are now, out of the parliament, and/or paid a lot more.

  • GordonD on 03/06/2022 - 10:04
    -2

    The history of every occupation is that when more and more women fill the jobs the remuneration goes down compared to other occupations that are mainly filled with men.

    So politicians are likely lowering their own salary trajectory by making the parliament more gender representative of the wider community.

    • LFO on 03/06/2022 - 11:45

      The history of every occupation is that when more and more women fill the jobs the remuneration goes down

      I wonder why?

      Lower productivity or blatant discrimination?

      • Other on 03/06/2022 - 21:07

        or just generally supply and demand - have more supply and price falls.

        Works if its women entering the workforce or selling Columbian talk powder.

  • Rockets84 on 03/06/2022 - 10:22
    +2

    My parents tell me that when they first started their careers as teachers back in the mid 70's police, nurses, teachers and back benchers all earned relatively the same wage. Look at the gaps in pay now between the politicians and the rest. I don't think we're getting value for money out of the politicians either.

  • c64 on 03/06/2022 - 10:33

    didn't the pension rort get axed? the pension link you reference is dated 2010

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join