• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Federal Pollie Pay Rises

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scotty

David Codey (61)
Are on the cards. $40k additional for a back bencher, and up to $90k more for the PM.

On one hand I think the current lot don't even deserve what they are getting now, although there is no doubt most of them work very hard, but on the other hand I think this might be a good thing to entice better talent into politics.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/mass...t-travel-perks-on-way-out-20111130-1o7d9.html

PS the crack down on travel perks is obviously a good thing.
 

matty_k

Peter Johnson (47)
Staff member
I understand what they are saying i.e. we want to attract the best people for the job, but how about they prove they are first.
 

Aussie D

Dick Tooth (41)
I believe that all our Federal politicians should be paid more (PM should be on a million a year) but the trade off should be that they and there partners cannot have direct investment in shares as it has the potential to cause conflicts of interest. Also the pensions should be in the form of 'parachute' payments and phase out over a 10 year period rather than a lifetime payment.
 

MrTimms

Ken Catchpole (46)
Staff member
When you consider you can get 5-10 million a year for running a big company, is $470K odd for being prime minister really that much?
 

Karl

Bill McLean (32)
The PM should be earning much more than current. I think we need to respect the position more. You don't have to like the person occupying it but the position should command more respect than it does.

I'd agree with this statement.
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
I understand what they are saying i.e. we want to attract the best people for the job, but how about they prove they are first.

Here is a salient point, the Politicians will say this and I would support it in principle.

However the system itself is corrupt and the best people do not progress to the election. The candidates presented at each election by the major parties are there in so many cases through nepotism and stacking of pre-selection results. How many of these candidates are successful people outside of politics? How many are really good "leaders" or even recognised practitioners in their fields, or or have had a successful career away from either the Union movement or Politics? Very very few, on the front benches I can think of two, Peter Garrett (proves that being successful away from Politics is no sure fire recipe for success - perhaps the entertainment industry isn't the best grounding unless your Ronnie Regan or the Governator) and Malcom Turnbull.

The whole pre-selection system run by both parties ensures the leaders of those parties get yes men/women to ensure the continuation of their rule. Hence the general public holds the vast majority in contempt, to the point that if voting was not compulsory there would be little voter turnout.

Regardless of what the pay is until they fix the pre-selection systems to actually get us decent skilled candidates on polling day we will continue to get people who are way out of their depth in terms of skill, ethics, integrity and life experience in the Parliament. We will continue to get abysmal service and childish behaviour from our parliaments and with every pay rise this argument will be raised and the public will resent and despise Politicians even more.
 

Ruggo

Mark Ella (57)
We could argue all day what Regan was worst at, being an actor or being a president.
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
The PM should be earning much more than current. I think we need to respect the position more. You don't have to like the person occupying it but the position should command more respect than it does.


If the person occupying the seat is not worthy of respect then the best they will get is lip service. The fact is the current resident compromised her own integrity to such a degree that she will never have respect of the people she is supposed to represent or much to our shame those she represents us to.
 

Aussie D

Dick Tooth (41)
Hence the general public holds the vast majority in contempt, to the point that if voting was not compulsory there would be little voter turnout.

I would be happy if voting was voluntary as it would get rid of the vast majority who views voting as a chore rather than as a privilige (if you don't think voting is a privilige take a look at what is happening in the Mid-East over the past 12 months or ask someone in Burma or China). It would hopefully also have the effect of bringing about a better class of candidate.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
I would be happy if voting was voluntary as it would get rid of the vast majority who views voting as a chore rather than as a privilige (if you don't think voting is a privilige take a look at what is happening in the Mid-East over the past 12 months or ask someone in Burma or China). It would hopefully also have the effect of bringing about a better class of candidate.

Agree, and along with this increase terms to 4 years to limit the amount of policies that come out just to get them re-elected.
 

DPK

Peter Sullivan (51)
I would be happy if voting was voluntary as it would get rid of the vast majority who views voting as a chore rather than as a privilige (if you don't think voting is a privilige take a look at what is happening in the Mid-East over the past 12 months or ask someone in Burma or China). It would hopefully also have the effect of bringing about a better class of candidate.

No way. I'll try not to sound too extreme, but when voting becomes voluntary, I'd predict:

  • It would become harder to vote: when, where, how.
  • Policies regarding groups that are unlikely to vote would get pushed back on the agenda.
  • Voting encourages interest and involvement in the politics of Australia; without people needing to vote, ignorance would enable the politicians to serve their own interests even more freely.

I'll admit there are benefits to making voting voluntary, some pretty good ones, but I think what you lose is worse than what you gain.
 

Schadenfreude

John Solomon (38)
Yep. In the UK and US the people who don't vote don't get cared about, and those that do vote for their personal benefit.

Eg: "I vote republican because they're pro military"
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
I would be happy if voting was voluntary as it would get rid of the vast majority who views voting as a chore rather than as a privilige (if you don't think voting is a privilige take a look at what is happening in the Mid-East over the past 12 months or ask someone in Burma or China). It would hopefully also have the effect of bringing about a better class of candidate.

You miss the point of my statement.

The compulsory voting system here disguises the issues of voter dissatisfaction from the Politicians. I had actually hoped that the very large informal vote at the last election would have brought it home to these numpties but only Graham Richardson and Alexander Downer acknowledged that there is a crisis in confidence amongst the voters regarding the elect-ability, honesty and suitability of our Politicians for office.

The bigger privilege is not to vote but to serve the community.

The argument that non voters lose importance can also be countered in that a major party would work very hard to engage with a wider voter base if it was voluntary as Australian fatalism and laziness would ensure that only those with a vested interest or existing political affiliation would turn out otherwise. Thus the need to engage the voter would drive the Parties to formulate policies that would do this.

There are two things that I would like to see
1) the removal of the preferential system so that no candidate polling dismal primary voter support can make office on back room deals.
2) fixing politicians wages to public servants (including the judiciary). This would promote fiscal responsibility and remove the moral issue that the politicians now face in that they have capped the wages of all their servants yet will give themselves a massive pay rise many times that of the cap on the servants wages. There is also the issue that the "independent" tribunal effectively makes recommendations on their own pay rise as the Judiciary's remuneration is linked to the Pollies, so it isn't really independent.
 

Rob42

John Solomon (38)
You miss the point of my statement.

The compulsory voting system here disguises the issues of voter dissatisfaction from the Politicians. I had actually hoped that the very large informal vote at the last election would have brought it home to these numpties but only Graham Richardson and Alexander Downer acknowledged that there is a crisis in confidence amongst the voters regarding the elect-ability, honesty and suitability of our Politicians for office.

The bigger privilege is not to vote but to serve the community.

The argument that non voters lose importance can also be countered in that a major party would work very hard to engage with a wider voter base if it was voluntary as Australian fatalism and laziness would ensure that only those with a vested interest or existing political affiliation would turn out otherwise. Thus the need to engage the voter would drive the Parties to formulate policies that would do this.

There are two things that I would like to see
1) the removal of the preferential system so that no candidate polling dismal primary voter support can make office on back room deals.
2) fixing politicians wages to public servants (including the judiciary). This would promote fiscal responsibility and remove the moral issue that the politicians now face in that they have capped the wages of all their servants yet will give themselves a massive pay rise many times that of the cap on the servants wages. There is also the issue that the "independent" tribunal effectively makes recommendations on their own pay rise as the Judiciary's remuneration is linked to the Pollies, so it isn't really independent.

Unfortunately the US shows us what can happen with voluntary voting - political parties focus most of their attention on getting their "base" to vote, rather than trying to persuade people to their ideas. And the quickest, easiest way to get lazy people to vote is to scare them. Hence the relentless negativity of US elections - the message is "if you don't get out and vote, the other guys will get elected and that will mean communism/police state/endless war - take your pick. They don't care if the ides seem extreme - they just want to motivate the people who would always only vote for one party, but who just could not be bothered. I think political parties here make a bigger effort to persuade swinging voters because they know they will stand in the voting booth and make a choice.
 

DPK

Peter Sullivan (51)
I think political parties here make a bigger effort to persuade swinging voters because they know they will stand in the voting booth and make a choice.

I agree with you whole previous post, but with regards to this part I'd say that this creates the problem of not wanting to seem too extreme for the moderates; it seems from my perspective that we have two parties that have driven to the middle of the road to try and secure the centrist hearts of swing voters.
 

Aussie D

Dick Tooth (41)
If we can't get voluntary voting then voluntary preferential would be okay with the caveat that there is a better education program for the electorate on how voluntary preferential voting works. That way if someone wants to send a message to the big 2.5 (.5 is Nationals) then they can simply leave them off their ballot paper with no fear of their vote not counting.
 

Schadenfreude

John Solomon (38)
I agree with you whole previous post, but with regards to this part I'd say that this creates the problem of not wanting to seem too extreme for the moderates; it seems from my perspective that we have two parties that have driven to the middle of the road to try and secure the centrist hearts of swing voters.

That's good right?

Who wants extremists?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top