Pay rise for politicians (again)
Pay rises for politicians are back on the agenda. It’s not very long since I blogged about our last pay rise – just last September. As I mentioned then, I thought it was hard to justify it for politicians, but I ended up not voting against it as it was linked to pay increase for a range of senior public service positions and I didn’t think it was right for me to vote to knock off their pay increase at the same time.
However, there’s no way I can support another pay rise of this size so soon after the last one. You can find plenty of detail in my post on this topic from last year about the process for determining politicians’ pay levels. There are also some statistics about the average pay for other Australians, which would be slightly out of date now, (but not much because it wasn’t that long ago). The mean (or mid-point) of full-time annual earnings in Australia would still be under $50 000 a year. While most politicians work harder than is often alleged, I still don’t think $127 000 a year is fair. Sure there are a few other people with less responsibility who earn more, but that just means they’re even more overpaid. By my estimate, fewer than two per cent of Australians would earn this amount in a year.
31 Comments, Comment or Ping
philip travers
Good on you Andrew! Take the money and give them, the bloody shits with it!Thank you Senator!
Jun 20th, 2007
PC Police
Andrew
If you think you shouldn’t have the pay rise, you can always send the money back to government. Nothing is stopping you, you know.
Jun 20th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
sure thing PCP – give them more money to add to their already overflowing propaganda budget for their pre-election advertisements. I can think of a million better causes I can donate it to. If you think I’m going to go through the red tape maze of donating money back to the government, you’re crazy.
Jun 20th, 2007
David Couper
Andrew, it’s once again good to see you displaying a principled and reasoned attitude to a not-insignificant issue. Donating some of the money would be a wonderful thing; making a big thing about it (without being too big a braggart) would do your re-election campaign no harm at all either! Such an act would register highly in my thoughts about the worthiness of Senate candidates – no doubt Pauline Hanson might like to donate some of her expected post-election windfall when the time comes ;)
Incidentally, if you do not use your printing allowance in full, where could/does it go? If you aren’t re-elected (not the situation I’m hoping for at any rate, as you can imagine), and you had $x left over in your printing fund, does it go “back to the Government”, or could you offload that funding to charity?
I’d love to see politicians telling us about how they spend their ordinary income. There should be a competition between all of you to publicly detail assets and expenditures, with the aim of seeing who is the most financially sensible (not necessarily spendthrift) politician in the land. But we’ll be hit by an asteroid before that ever happens…
Dave
Jun 21st, 2007
Stuart Fenech
The argument that seems to keep on being thrown out there is that to attract the best minds, you have to pay big bucks.
Now. I’ve been wondering about this for a while.
Do we really want people serving in parliament because of the pay packet?
What sort of people would be attracted into Parliament if the prime motivation was the pay packet?
I know of a case of an MP that was attracted based on the pay packet. It was ugly.
Jun 21st, 2007
ken
Why stop there David – perhasp you’d think even more highhly of our beloved Senator if he volunteered?
And while weer at it – we should pay them the median wage (thats the mid point not average), and also require them to be fully accountable for not only every cebnt they spendm, bioth professionally and privately but I think I’d like to know the contents of every phone call – is that enough accountability for you?
The pay is apporpiate relative to the improtance of the job for every one of us in society. We have a never ending string of commentators on here deifying the need for accountability, democracy, the sanctity of the committee process, the senates job in safegurading the world from the evisl of market capitalsim, (inlcuding you Anderw), yet is all that of so little improtacne we think they should not be paid a decent wage for a roliing three year AWA with almost no minimum award conditions, on call 24/7, six months away from home, etc etc all the rest of us take fro granted.
Yes of ocurse there are perks in retrun, but on balance I dont have a problem wiht the pay.
Jun 21st, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
Dave
Unexpended allowances, such as printing, communications, staff travel, etc just remain unexpended. You don’t get paid them up front, the Department draws down on the allocation and pays the bills as you spend them.
The media sometimes add the value of all those sort of allowances to the base pay, but it’s not money the MP ever sees, (apart from the electorate allowance – which is an unallocated amount which can be spent on expenses related to electorate activities).
I broadly agree with you, Ken, and I don’t have a problem with a reasonably good level of remuneration for MPs. As I tried to detail in my old post on it when the last pay rise happens, the level of pay given to MPs is actually higher than all but a small percentage of the community. There has to be a limit to how far you push the argument that such a position of significant responsibility deserves to be well remunertaed, and I think we’re at it.
Jun 21st, 2007
PC Police
Andrew
There is no red tape. All you need to do is send a cheque to the ATO with a note saying you’re sending the money back. They’ll know what to do.
Jun 21st, 2007
Sarah
PCP- Why would Andrew give the money back to the government? So they can spend it on another WorkChoices ‘public information’ campaign? You may have noticed that he happens to disagree with a lot of the government’s priorities when it comes to spending money- what kind of fool would he be if he contributed to that any more than he was compelled to?
Charity is the way to go.
Jun 21st, 2007
philip travers
I say let the Senator use the money in a way that gets right up the noses of our Great dictator and pretend Benefactor.Some of the critics of the payrise in the SMH decided to have a go at the Senator here.Unfair I say ,but no doubt blaming the Democrats for the payrise when they have mentioned the overpayment reality a number of times reflects the problem of Justice and equity in our nation.And now the Howard government has stuck the boot in again in the NT. ,I wonder how long it will take before the Senator here is seen as applying a worthy set of thoughts across a number of subjects,including matters Aboriginal.We were warned ,however,by the rabid Pearson speech.
Jun 21st, 2007
muzzmonster
I imagine PCP, that if any of us sent a cheque to the ATO, they would give us a credit on our income tax return the following year.
Of course, I could be wrong, but I’m not about to volunteer to find out.
Jun 21st, 2007
David Couper
Ken, if any Senator or Rep volunteered, and didn’t already have a whopping fortune (along the lines of say, hmmmm, Malcolm Turnbull), I would have them checked into a Mental Health Clinic. And I am not personally interested in listening in on anyone’s phone calls – granted, if I were offered work with ASIO (and were to be paid more than what Senators are), I might change my mind, wink wink. And Ken, after reading about Sue Boyce’s substantial “pearl” faux pas in regard to this same topic, it seems clear that not every politician is so deserving (let alone requiring) of such a pay increase, hence the greater desire for transparency in regard to a politician’s assets.
Stuart, your comment in a roundabout way can relate to persons particularly working within the legal field, who realise they are not good enough to compete with those smarter and thus busier (and better paid) than them. Still wishing to be involved in law, but with perks, a political career is the perfect “get-out” clause. While I am biased, I believe my father would make an incredible politician and legislator, on the basis of his intellectual and ethical capacities. But there is virtually no chance that he would take a paycut, amounting to about 88%, to become a Senator, and nor would most of his colleagues at a similar level of competency and income. By contrast, 14 of the 76 current Senators were lawyers of some type – the highest proportion of one field represented in the body (Union officials next with 11, then teachers). My instinct tells me these ex-lawyers weren’t the cream of the crop.
Me? I do it for half price: $63500/yr. Considering my vital expenditures, as a current uni student and casual worker, such a salary would enable me to be wider read, be wirelessly “mobile”, and to install full-scale solar power at home. I’d be happy!
Jun 22nd, 2007
red crab
i dont have a problem with pollys getting a pay rise at all .
now that mite sound silly but some of the ppl out in the private sector make pollys wages look a bit sad.
the problem that i have is a well payed polly standing up and saying that the average wage is 50.000. when will someone work out what the real average wage is .
now that would take a polly with real hart.
istead all we hear is bob brown saying its a discrace but i bet he will accsept the money what i dont see is him comming up with what the average person has to live on.
then lets see some pollys justify the money they get.
Jun 22nd, 2007
CORAL
I don’t think that $127,000 is a high salary for people trying to run the country.
I thought they said the Prime Minister would be getting about $160,000. That’s not a lot of money for the level of responsibility and hours of work – not to mention putting up with backstabbing, criticism etc and time spent away from family.
Lots of professional people earn in excess of $100,000. I know quite a few of them myself.
Do they have to make decisions affecting the wellbeing of 22,000,000 people? I think not.
Stuart Fenech:
There are plenty of doctors, lawyers and other professional people in the parliament. They could make one helluva sight more money (with less stress) in their usual jobs.
Do you know how much doctors, dentists, lawyers and engineers make?
Jun 22nd, 2007
ken
Sorry you missed the point David – the senator didn’t.
Just maybe most of those failed lawyers in the big house beleive in trying to make a differnce, rather than making money
Jun 22nd, 2007
Lana
I think it’s wonderful that Mr Howard found such an excellent use for all the money he’ll be saving but decreasing welfare payments to single mothers and the disabled, isn’t it?
Giving all pollies an annual pay rise of exactly what I currently get in an ENTIRE YEAR to raise my kid on (whilst simultaneously telling me that I will soon be getting even less when I can barely affrod to eat now) and then justifying it by saying that the cost of living has increased beggars belief.
As a student also please let me point out that the PES and Education Entry Payments have not been increased in years.
Jun 22nd, 2007
CORAL
That’s right, Lana.
Neither Labor nor Liberal give a stuff about welfare recipients.
They talk about how various reforms will benefit low income earners, middle income earners and high income earners.
The Liberals put incentives in place for the benefit of everyone except those living on welfare.
Consequently, the welfare beneficiary becomes more of a social pariah every day.
Jun 23rd, 2007
paul walter
Once again my sympathies lie with Lana.
Personally, I reckon people who can’t even understand the meaning of a simple UN resolution demanding Israel get out of Palestine ought to reduced to the dole rather than get an increase (apart from greens)
Actually some politicians should go much further and also hand back what they have ripped off under false pretenses, starting with that execrable individual, the PM.
Jun 23rd, 2007
David Couper
Maybe you’re right Ken: perhaps those “failed lawyers” are trying to make a difference – an increase in their public notoriety and in their ability to influence (usually negligibly or in mediocre fashion) the direction of a nation. If they were incompetent beforehand as lawyers, then they will be awful as legislators. If they were moderate in talent and income, there may be a slight chance that it is all for the common good, but as likely a chance that it is a temporary sacrifice in order to gain credos, so that when they are bundled out or get sick of it, they have a chance at higher earnings in their original profession because of their increased profile. If they were really good, then hopefully they saved a fortune in preparation for a legitimate crack at affecting positive change. Keep in mind also, Ken, that when competent lawyers make big money, they tend to earn that money from clients who have a lot to play with and a lot to play for. Some can be certainly overpriced, and they usually get found out in the end.
What part of the point did I miss? It appears politicians are paid too much, as Senator Bartlett has stated herein. I clarified for my own benefit the nature of electoral allowances and printing funds. I took Stuart’s line of questioning to a particular answer. On the other hand, you managed to come up with a spiel about “rolling 3 year AWAs…”. I leave it to the Senator to tell us how many hours a day he is “on call”, how many days he is “away from home” (let alone whether it is a massive burden on his personal life – I would imagine were that truly the case, he like so many others would not have bothered). And as for making a real difference Ken, it would be wonderful to understand your background, to determine why you really believe “pollie” pay is “on balance unproblematic”, as well as to understand why you never edit your posts (I cannot stand bad spelling!).
Jun 24th, 2007
CORAL
I don’t think it is fair to assume that a politician who has previously worked in a profession has been a failure in his/her work.
Jun 25th, 2007
David
Andrew.
The old political scene down there in Canberra sees some interesting news stories and politician’s pay rise amongst them.
Although I support your position and your leader on this issue, I also note your comments about the amount of parliamentary sitting days.
Now we have the parliament resuming two weeks earlier after the winter recess.
Jun 25th, 2007
David Couper
Don’t worry Coral, my “failure” tag doesn’t apply to all professions – that would be highly illogical. Allow me to add that what I’ve read about the people I’m making reference to, the “lawyers” if you will, leads me to conclude that they are, as I previously stated, “not the cream of the crop”. Clearly if everyone who “failed” in their profession then became a politician, we might just get that Apocalypse some of our nation & world seem to be after a lot quicker than those Neo-Survivalists amongst us would prefer. I’m only really using “failed” in the context of lawyers because of the ladder of income levels and competency rates (usually correlating), which some less-competent performers believed they could climb quite high, but when they couldn’t, found something more “worthwhile” to do. By contrast, I would think in the case of teachers that all of them who are now pollies would have garnered a significant payrise, with no decreases amongst them (except uni professors?). I can’t make the same judgment (right or wrong) about teachers as I am about lawyers, because the income factor is altered.
Jun 27th, 2007
CORAL
David:
Yes, teachers would certainly be in for a pay rise, but not Uni professors. A school principal might be in for a moderate pay rise, depending on the size of his/her school (student numbers).
Rudd is running a female teacher against Peter Dutton in our electorate – a good idea in view of the funding inequities between public and private schools.
The parliament certainly benefits from the contribution of professional people who were good at their former jobs, no matter what they were.
Jun 27th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
Just updating and finalising the issue raised in this post.
The Senate debated a motion this week to disallow the pay increase. There were a couple of valid arguments against supporting such a motion – firstly it would mean stopping the pay increase of about 90 or so senior public servants, and secondly it would bring politicians back into the role of directly determining our own pay. These are the reasons I didn’t vote against the last pay increase. However, as I said in my main post, I think to have another pay rise of this size so soon after the last one is simply not justifiable, so I voted against the rise (that is, in support of the disallowance motion). I was the only Qld MP from either house to vote against the pay increase.
Alan Ramsey from the SMH writes about it here.
Aug 11th, 2007
Naomi Cartledge
Coral, with the latest pay increase, the PM’s oncome is about $320,000 per year. A back bencher is on $130,000 or so.When you add all the ‘trimmings’involved such as a car, a lap top, a mobile phone, travelling expenses, accommodation expenses, living away from home allowance when in Canberra, all paid for by us. Add the fact, that last years tax breaks for those whose income is $100,000 per year or more was $36billion over 4 years, plus they have the best superannuation scheme of anyone in the country. (of course I don’t include millionaires).Then there’s all the extras involving their electorate offices, staff etc. Not bad! Last year, the superannuation surcharge was cut, for those same income people at the cost of $2 billion, it’s not a bad package is it?
I wouldn’t mind so much, if people like Howard, Costello and their mates didn’t object to low income workers getting an increase, or as happened a few weeks ago(just after their increase) low income workers got $10, and Costello had the damned hide to say that the Fair Pay Commission “got it right”. He got about $10,000. Do they think that people on $50,000 per year with a couple or three kids, go to a different supermarket than they do? Unlike politicians, these people don’t get a car and/or driver, or buy their petrol at a discount price. It really makes me fume, when the ’suits’ start their protestations that the ‘economy’ can’t stand a higher increase, blah blah! And now they’re stunned, that the electorate is sick of the arrogance. The ordinary person is sick of this ’strong economy’ that just isn’t doing anything for them, no matter how hard and long they work. My heart goes out to those people who are really doing it tough, and raising children as well. I don’t wonder that they’re stressed!
Some politicians just stop short of insulting language, when a new poll tells them, that the electorate has had enough. Howard says he’s not arrogant or out of touch??????
Aug 12th, 2007
muzzmonster
Just an idea, but since politician’s pay rises are linked to that of senior public servants – and that the state politicians inevitably follow, wouldn’t it be good if the pay of ALL public servants (teachers, nurses, police, clerks, etc) were also linked?
Given that so many people around Australia (and the implications on the public purse) would be affected by this, it seems to me that this would ensure that politicians would think twice about voting themselves a pay rise.
Apologies if this has been brought up before.
Aug 12th, 2007
Donna
Love that idea Muzz
The police just got a 5% pay increase over four years I think.
Nurses got a pay rise too in the last couple of years and they can salary sacrifice their homes, cars, superannuation.
Police can do that too I think.
Teachers, what did they get? A measley 3% over four years. We can salary sacrifice cars and superannuation, but not our mortgages.
Both the police and nurses have an inbuilt income with overtime due to shift work.
Teachers are still stuck on their pittance of a salary and last time we got a pay increase we politely waited until both the police and nurses got their pay increase.
Aug 12th, 2007
Donna
Andrew
Why do you keep deleting my posts while not deleting others?
Aug 12th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
I don’t know what you’re referring to Donna – especially seeing the previous comment is also from you. I haven’t deleted one of yours for a while – and I’d be surprised if there’d been more than 2 or 3, which were either right off-topic or just consisted of nothing but having a shot at others (which is off-topic anyway usually).
Mind you, this comment of yours is off-topic too, now that I think of it (but then so is mine in responding I suppose, which shows that these things will always be a balancing act)
Aug 12th, 2007
Donna
I do apologise Andrew
I found my posts on another thread.
Aug 13th, 2007