Nice sentiment, but far too often monkey's are parachuted into safe seats by the apes that run the show- just look at any Labor state govt. It's a joke that even their own are finding hard to swallow

Are you saying we shouldn't pay them more because we are getting monkeys for the peanuts we currently pay? Don't you think paying them more would help solve that problem? I can't imagine a HR person thinking to themselves, "hmmm, can't seem to get decent employees at the salary we offer, why don't we trying offering less".

The pay should also reflect the risk and personal investment involved in running for office.

Like the private sector they should have wages paid according to the skills and qualifications they bring with them.

Are you suggesting that each politician be paid differently according to some criteria based on their skills?

I don't think it would be practical to base a politician's salary on anything other than the job they do.

I think we should put the salaries up. With more skilled people competing for the positions it would be harder for factional interests to control who ends up getting elected. There would be more external competition, more competition within parties and a greater incentive for party members to go public if they think the wrong thing has been done.

We should have a wider range of experts as pollies.

eg, the countries best scientists, best engineers, best teachers, best ethitists, best managers, best economists.
As it is, we mainly have exlawyers there.
To get the best, we have to offer the best wages.

freediver wrote on Mar 26^th, 2008 at 3:20pm:


No.  They don't get a look in.   I believe both a Tasmanian and a NSW sitting pollie were displaced last time around by union bullies.  One union thug was Greg Combet and I can't recall the other off hand.

Is it really that hard for you to consider a solution other than voting out Labor?

Why settle for half @rsed, second best solution?


Let me get this straight, you honestly believe that increasing the salary offered for a postion will not increase the competition for it?

Do you know how politics works?

It does to a degree- but in political life that degree is much, much less

freediver wrote on Mar 26^th, 2008 at 3:34pm:


It has nothing to do with partisanship and a whole lot to do with reality.

In NSW the Liebor Party shoehorned Greg Combet in as the candidate in the safe Liebor seat of Charlton.  In doing so they thrust aside sitting member Kelly Hoare to the delight of the local union thugs.

Now the way I see it is Greg Combet has no experience, he doesn't know the electorate, he's never been a politician, he's never done the stuff it takes to fight his way there.  He's just been an ACTU agitator with no concept of political diplomacy.  He just gets given a plum job with a salary way too big for him.  

Is that right or fair?

Throwing money around- especially at politicians- probably won't do much good IMO

To enter politics requires a special type of person that financial restitution doesn't necessarily buy. It may widen the field to include a lot more lacklustre and unsuitable candidates.

IQ we accept salary as a major motivator for just about every other job. Why should politics be any different? While it is nice to have someone motivated by a desire to improve the lot of others, that doesn't necessarily mean they are going to be competent. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don't see why the skills needed by a politician are so different from the skills needed by any other kind of manager.

Just as with any ohter job, salary will never control everyone's decision. But when a competent ideologue is lacking and we are left with a choice between two partisan game players and a bunch of independent lunatics (this is more often than not the case), I would gladly settle for the guy willing to give up a high paid job managing a large company.

I have spoken to many people about political issues. Politicians, wannabe politicians, and their groupies seem to have very fixed ideas that they can't justify beyond repeating slogans. It is inevitably like talking to a brick wall. The people who can articulate their views, justify them, explain them and challenge my thoughts on an issue always seem to be people in high paid positions who would not think about running for office. They tend to hold equally strong views as politicians and their hangers on. The difference is that they seem to be able to think about it on a more fundamental level.

Politicians ahndle billions of dollars in public funds and manage large projects. Every time they stuff up, it costs the people huge sums of money. The amount spent on politicians salaries is minuscule compared to the amount lost through mismanagement of public funds.

"IQ we accept salary as a major motivator for just about every other job. Why should politics be any different?"
because a politician really shouldn't be there for the money or power. they should be there if the feel like they can represent their constituents in the best possible fashion - money shouldn't be a motivating factor.

"While it is nice to have someone motivated by a desire to improve the lot of others, that doesn't necessarily mean they are going to be competent."
competent at what? taking the advice of shiny arse beauracrats that variously lack any motivation to be a civil servant other than what super and other benefits they can accrue?

" The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

here's another non sequitur "a camel will pass through the eye of a needle before a rich man enters heaven"

"I don't see why the skills needed by a politician are so different from the skills needed by any other kind of manager."

because a good politician empowers the vision of those he represents. and "a good manager" never has that capacity.

"I would gladly settle for the guy willing to give up a high paid job managing a large company."

thats mostly what we have now on both sides of the political divide. love or loath them at least jbp jh and costalotello had a vision - a new/old vision of americanism in oz but they had some vision and bent the will of the beauracrats to deliver what they promised.

gilly, roxy and swanee have some in measure as well, lets see hwat they muster

"The people who can articulate their views, justify them, explain them and challenge my thoughts on an issue always seem to be people in high paid positions who would not think about running for office."

i think you need to socialise more freedriver

"Politicians ahndle billions of dollars in public funds and manage large projects. Every time they stuff up, it costs the people huge sums of money. The amount spent on politicians salaries is minuscule compared to the amount lost through mismanagement of public funds."

so you'd like to see the gap between these two cost factors decrease?

the only way that could happen is if we let public managers (who always want a piece of the action ie shares, dividends, exit payouts that pale into comparison to our pollies) let the worker carry the can more than they do now.

god help us if turnupthebull becomes pm.


give me a visionary for a leader every time.

because a good politician empowers the vision of those he represents. and "a good manager" never has that capacity.

I take it you've never heard of a mission statement?

thats mostly what we have now on both sides of the political divide. love or loath them at least jbp jh and costalotello had a vision - a new/old vision of americanism in oz but they had some vision and bent the will of the beauracrats to deliver what they promised.

gilly, roxy and swanee have some in measure as well, lets see hwat they muster

There are far more politicians around than that. The ones you list are the cream of the crop, not typical politicans.

so you'd like to see the gap between these two cost factors decrease?

Yes.

the only way that could happen is if we let public managers (who always want a piece of the action ie shares, dividends, exit payouts that pale into comparison to our pollies) let the worker carry the can more than they do now.

Wrong. I think you missed the point. If our politicians were better managers, less money would be wasted through poor management. Given the huge sums under management, even a small improvement would more than cover a significant increase in salary. Imagine someone trying to say that the telstra could save money by having a CEO on only $100000 per year.

give me a visionary for a leader every time

There are plenty of visionaries in the private sector to. You just can't afford them with the salary you are paying politicians.

You work a lowly paid job and you are bitter about it because you don't have the nous to advance, so you would prefer to put everyone on an even keel with your level capacity?

No idea where you pulled that from IQ. I am suggesting a pay rise for people who already earn more than me.

Besides which no private enterprise entrepreneur would even consider it even if you offered him a salary similar to the CEOs of BHP.

They're about radical change, profit making and the acquisition of personal assets - not possible in Government.

RecFisher wrote on Mar 26^th, 2008 at 10:44pm:


While I'm certain freediver will ignore your question as he seems to ignore all questions this is a very valid point Recfisher.

In both cases, private and public, people are paid according to experience and qualification, and then promoted according to proven ability, commitment or a range of attributes.

This would follow that some pollies are paid too much and some too little.

IQSRLOW wrote on Mar 26^th, 2008 at 9:47pm:



hahaha, not quite. but come on squire i'm sure there's a better way you can try to insult me than to make a generalised statment that assumes if you have a low paid job you've Got to have no "nous".

freediver wrote on Mar 27^th, 2008 at 9:31am:


Ok, the Defence portfolio's estimated spending for 2007-08 is $44-odd billion, with an estimate of some 95,000 staff (military and civillian combined).  The Attorney General's Portfolio has $3.5 billion and 18,000 respectively. (source 2007-08 Budget Papers).

How much should the Defence Minister be paid in comparison to the Attorney General?  5 times as much, 10 times?

How much more should a Minister be paid than an ordinary Reps or Senate member?

In comparison, Woolworths Ltd has about 180,000 staff, and $42 billion in sales. (source 2006-07 Annual Report).  Should the Defence Minister's salary be comparable to the Woolworths' CEO?

What skills does a politician actually need? Seriously.

Other than competant polling of his electorate to find out how his/her electorate require them to vote on any issue before the house. And what issues they want before the house. That's it. The administration is taken over by the public servants.

Serving in the political arena should be seen as a public calling and more Australians should be educated and encouraged to a level that allows them to give it a go. I'm sure an adequate course could be developed at high school level and as a open learning subject to allow people to have a grasp of macro economics, strategic studies, separation of powers, duty of the office etc etc.

Some of the dubious claims about the superiority of the Liberal party skill set are luckily so transparently vitriolic and biased that the equal and appropiate level of rebuttal would be to suggest that the Liberal party is made up of the inbred aristocracy of politics and money, producing the absolute worst kind of politician. The professional politician, and worse still the cross-generational professional politician.

Our education system should aim for this as a minimum: that graduation from high school level is adequate for ANY in the general population to capably represent their community and to understand the mechanics of represntative government. Include history, social studies, science and political and ethical philosophy.

I'd rather see more "real people" amatuer politicians than wheeling dealing grubs in there at the moment. It's a pity that the Labor party sold out the working class many years ago and decided to lower themselves to the self serving back room prostitution of the Liberal party.

FD. at the moment, they are more than adequately compensated. Refer to my opening question.

mozzaok - hahahah , rudd would not carry that over to this pocket.
the way ALP have driven the economy, they owe US money !!!!!!!

Libs would have had to be paid millions per year - well worth it.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 9^th, 2008 at 1:09pm:


Oh sprint, that's hilarious. I've had to dial 000. Laughing so much I can't breath. Thanks mate for the giggle.

What skills does a politician actually need?

They need management skills. In any other industry, that puts them at the top of the slaary scale.

Other than competant polling of his electorate to find out how his/her electorate require them to vote on any issue before the house.

That is not what politicians do. The whole point of our electoral system is that it allows people to let politicians make their decisions for them. There is a lot that politicians do that people never hear about, unless they stuff up badly.

Our education system should aim for this as a minimum: that graduation from high school level is adequate for ANY in the general population to capably represent their community

Do we want someone who is merely capable, or do we want the best?

If being a politician is so easy, why does everyone keep complaining that they can't do it right? It smacks of tall poppy syndrome. People don't want to admit that being a politician requires valuable skills that they lack.

Nice, if they have them (management skills), but not necessary.

You are kidding right? A politician without management skills? Do you think they just say 'let there be light' and the light comes on?

What are they managing other than getting re-elected.

Err, the country for starters. What do you think they do?

Leave the management up to the bureaucracy, the public servants.

OK then, they manage the bureacracy. The control the flow of billions of dollars. I don't want to pay peanuts and have some monkey in charge of that. Bank CEOs don't serve customers over the phone, the don't program ATMs, etc. If you took the same obtuse approach to them you would get someone with a banking degree, pay them $100000 and expect them to manage billions of dollars effectively.

But this is what they should do. That's it.

No it isn't. That is not how our democracy operates, nor how it should operate. That would be a very inefficient system.

And that is the really scary part, the decisions they make in my name and on my behalf, secretly.

It's not that they do it secretly, it's that so few care enough to inform themselves. It's a full time job for a large number of people that is a significant burden on society. You would make it a full time job for the entire population, leaving no-one to get anything else done.

I think most people would rather be polled and represented.

I would like to be polled on who I want to govern and a few key issues. I would not want to be polled on every decision politicians make.

I'll take capable, from as large an experience pool as meets the requirements rather than the professional politician. The two party system is a complete rort.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of our political system. Once you are elected, you are a professional politician by definition, regardless of whether they meet your arbitrary criteria for suitability. The two party system is the democratic choice of the people, who place more trust in party institutions than individual politicians. It is democracy in action. The two party system is not a system, it is the outcome of the election. It is what people vote for.

If they really did, there would be far more united decisions made for the good of the country.

The disagreements you see are not manufactured. They are real and reflect real disagreements between real people. The disagreements would not simply disappear if those making them have the interest of the people at heart. That is an incredibly naive view.

I thought they are the vicarious decision makers. Otherwise why call it the House of Represtatives.

There is more than one way to represent someone. You can reflect their ignorance of an issue in the legislation you pass, or you can look into it for them and make an informed decision on their behalf. I know what I would prefer from my representative.

Pay the bureaucrates top dollars for performance. They are the management. The implement the decisions.

But the critical role is with the people who make the decisions. CEOs do not impliment their own decisions. They have staff for that. They are paid so much money for making the right decisions. It is the decisions that are most valuable, which is why in all areas other than politics it is the decision makers that are paid most.

Why is it an inefficient system?

Because it would require every member of the public to inform themselves of every single issue. Or to put it more simply, there would be all chiefs and no Indians. Someone has to get up in the morning and bake the bread.

Of course disagreement would not dissapear but it would be a lot less automatic if they actually had the interests of the country and it's citizens at heart.

People wouldn't get into politics unless they had the interest of the country at heart. The skills it takes to get elected would earn someone a fortune in private industry. Just because they engage in one-upmanship does not mean they don't have our interests at heart. It's just tall poppy syndrome that leads people to think politicians do it for the money and that they are incompetents who couldn't get a job elsewhere.

Surely you are just as facinated as I, at the mutual respect and commonness of focus when they are voting for a salary increase or a super package that is actually illegal for all other Australian.

I think they should be paid more. I'm hoping that by voting for higher salaries they will vote themselves out of a job, because more able people will run for parliament.

Hoping for a better system is not incredibly naive as far as I am concerned.

It's not your hope that is naive, but the system you think is better.