Should the salaries of federal ministers be increased? (2 Viewers)

[impervious182]

Pay ministers more - Baird

"THE former NSW Liberal MP Bruce Baird has supported the Remuneration Tribunal's concerns that federal ministers are underpaid, saying politicians' salaries are not high enough to attract talented people into Parliament.

But sitting MPs on both sides of politics passed on the tribunal's suggestion that they needed substantial pay rises yesterday, declaring that they were happy with their existing pay packets.

The debate was sparked by the tribunal's president, John Conde, who used his annual report to Parliament to urge a quantum leap in ministerial pay rates."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pay-ministers-more--baird/2008/12/04/1228257229322.html
​

 

[katie tully]

Nurses
Teachers
Police
Paramedics

I can think of 100 other professions that don't pay enough to attract talented people. Fuck off Parliament, you bunch of leeches.

 

[impervious182]

What qualifies politicians for an increase in pay. I'm sure you'll agree that several deserve a cut (not least Kevin747 who has spent $600k on travel) We could divert money into cash strapped public services (health and education for example) but instead, we SHOULD try and generate more politicians? How silly of me. We I walk into an underresourced classroom or hospital, I'll remember to declare "stop complaining guys! Politicians aren't paid enough!)

Look I'm about as anti-Rudd as one can get and Rudd has travelled too much. However one could hardly claim that that $600k has actually been used for relaxation and enjoyment; it's part of the job, because the trips are fundamentally business trips.

And yes, without doubt there are other professions who deserve a pay rise. However, using Singapore as a case study; corruption there amongst ministers is less prevalent in comparison with Australia, and the attractiveness of becoming a politician high, because of the larger salaries.

The question becomes, why shouldn't politicians be paid more? Why would a lawyer, study for years, to become a low-paid politician, when instead they could earn much more as a lawyer? It doesn't make sense, because there is no incentive to become a politician. As a result, our politicians are not as talented as they could be, or at least, it's not as competitive. And yes, I agree that with health care and education, we see the exact same problem. These professions require skilled and passionate staff; they need to be motivated and talented; many teachers and nurses at the moment, are not as skilled as they could be... certainly there isn't enough incentive for those who wish to become teachers, nurses etc.

The way to fix poor health care and education (apart from being a state, not a federal government issue) is to have people in charge who are determined to fix the problem and are most capable of doing it; in terms of education, experience etc. Also though, it's not as if a pay increase for politicians would divert hundreds of millions away from other areas. There aren't, after all, that many federal ministers (at least, not in comparison with teachers etc.) An increase in federal minister pay would be just one of many steps.

Then, we also need to consider the pay of teachers, police (especially the amoun tof police), nurses etc.

 

[Will Shakespear]

Just looking at it a different way, it doesn't matter how bright politicians are

Because the limiting factor is the 'brightness' (or some other term, i dunno) of the general population, not the individuals in parliament

i.e. I'm sure politicians know that they don't always use money in the best possible way, but they have to do and say certain things, e.g. cash handouts, to please the morons that populate the country

therefore improving the standard of politicians is useless you improve the standard of the people (e.g. education) first.

 

[boris]

Politicians don't get into politics for the money, the do it for the prestige etc. When they have finished their political career, if they did a half decent job, they can usually get fairly high paying job in the private sector.

 

[boris]

That's an outrageous, sweeping generalization.

Politicians like Turnbull and Rudd who have large personal fortunes and would probably do the job if it paid nothing are the exception, not the rule.

Money is a powerful incentive that motivates just about everyone. Most politicians who go from ordinary jobs and financial circumstances to working in politics would indeed be motivated by remuneration. For many, the prospect of lucrative private sector jobs in the future would not be enough. They would require a certain level of cashflow to support themselves and their families in the present or they simply would not do the job.

Sure "prestige ect" is a motivation too. The same applies to just about any job. Of course their are non-monetary considerations. But they will always exist. All else being equal, the more the job pays, the more quality candidates the employer has to choose from.

lol so?

 

[A High Way Man]

The Senate needs to be more prestigious, like the US senate
so many random bogans in the senate

 

[Iron]

You have to put a pretty big pricetag on the fame and prestige. Rudd doesnt make as much as a major CEO in this country, but he's still the most powerful guy in the land and will probably be at least mentioned forever. Vanity is priceless

 

[jb_nc]

how about stop posting faggot OP

don't delete this post faggot mods

 

[jb_nc]

That's an outrageous, sweeping generalization.

Politicians like Turnbull and Rudd who have large personal fortunes and would probably do the job if it paid nothing are the exception, not the rule.

Money is a powerful incentive that motivates just about everyone. Most politicians who go from ordinary jobs and financial circumstances to working in politics would indeed be motivated by remuneration. For many, the prospect of lucrative private sector jobs in the future would not be enough. They would require a certain level of cashflow to support themselves and their families in the present or they simply would not do the job.

Sure "prestige ect" is a motivation too. The same applies to just about any job. Of course their are non-monetary considerations. But they will always exist. All else being equal, the more the job pays, the more quality candidates the employer has to choose from.

Yeah also keep in mind they get a 130 000 dollar a year pension indexed after parliament no matter what else they do.

That's a p good motivation.

 

[boris]

Yeah also keep in mind they get a 130 000 dollar a year pension indexed after parliament no matter what else they do.

That's a p good motivation.

Also is the workload for the average mp that high? Like i would think there would be no-where near the sort of pressure that they would face in the private sector. Look at fucking what morris iemma did to nsw, that shit wouldn't fly in the private sector, he would almost be in gaol by now.

 

[blue_chameleon]

If we are talking about merging some of the pay aspects of the corporate sector into government, what about some type of bonus scheme?

Meh, probably wouldn't work though. I'm with ghey, I think a politicians performance is limited by their electorate.

All you have to do is read some of the comments to articles on news.com to see how retarded and narcissistic some people are these days (granted, news.com isn't a sample thats necessarily representative of the wider population...but I dont think it's that far off).

Looking at it logically though, talk is cheap and grand promises tend to be often made in politics without being delivered. How do we address this? Become more cynical?

 

[Trefoil]

They're planning to introduce a bill to breathalyse parliament before they vote.

lol.

 

[boris]

Wasn't that cunt drunk in parliament the other day?

 

[moll.]

The question is whether the salaries of federal ministers should be raised, not back-benchers. Currently, a cabinet minister will earn $219k per year, according to the article. To me, that's plenty enough, if not too much. I can understand increasing back-bencher pay levels, however, to provide more incentive to get into politics in the first place. Personally, i think that the politicians shouldn't be paid extra for being a cabinet minister. Their payment is in prestige and glory, not in money.

 

[boris]

The question is whether the salaries of federal ministers should be raised, not back-benchers. Currently, a cabinet minister will earn $219k per year, according to the article. To me, that's plenty enough, if not too much. I can understand increasing back-bencher pay levels, however, to provide more incentive to get into politics in the first place. Personally, i think that the politicians shouldn't be paid extra for being a cabinet minister. Their payment is in prestige and glory, not in money.

I think that bonus idea was a good one. Perhaps they should be punished for fucking up too?

 

[moll.]

I think that bonus idea was a good one. Perhaps they should be punished for fucking up too?

Their punishment is history hating them. And for the type of person who has the drive to become a politician, that hurts. A lot.

 

[Iron]

Yeah, their bonus is the lecture circuit, book deals, paid appearances, token membership on various boards etc. after politics
Penalty is losing preselection

 

[zstar]

No and most government departments should be cut as they are useless and serve no purpose.

 

[chicky_pie]

Nurses
Teachers
Police
Paramedics

I can think of 100 other professions that don't pay enough to attract talented people. Fuck off Parliament, you bunch of leeches.

.