Should the salaries of federal ministers be increased? (3 Viewers)

[boris]

add local government engineers to that list

 

[impervious182]

Good point, about the skills of politicians being limited by the intelligence of the general populace.

However increased salaries for federal ministers serves another purpose - not just to improve the efficiency of parliament and ensure that solutions to complex problems are implemented. It also limits any corruption which might be occurring and facilitates greater parliamentary integrity.

Also though, how a political leader reacts to crisis is not determined by the general populace, per say, as in many cases, fast action is required and the more talented the individual, the more effective this fast action can be.

 

[Enteebee]

I think they should be paid more and I think if you paid them more you'd attract better people and our parliament would likely be better. As for the whole idea that it's a stupid public who picks stupid politicians, tbqh the public only gets to pick from the talent pools of 2 (maybe soon 3?) parties.

BTW as for nurses, they actually get paid plenty imo, it's more just that the work sucks... that's why you have a hard time getting people. I'd say the money could be better spent making sure that there is more staff to lessen the burden on those already there.

 

[Trefoil]

I think they should be paid more and I think if you paid them more you'd attract better people and our parliament would likely be better. As for the whole idea that it's a stupid public who picks stupid politicians, tbqh the public only gets to pick from the talent pools of 2 (maybe soon 3?) parties.

BTW as for nurses, they actually get paid plenty imo, it's more just that the work sucks... that's why you have a hard time getting people. I'd say the money could be better spent making sure that there is more staff to lessen the burden on those already there.

Eh, I reckon the more you pay them, the more selfish people you'll get wanting to become pollies. It should be a job you do because it means a lot to you. Can't pay them too little, though, or they'll be too receptive to corruption.

That, and it's no more worthy a career than teaching or nursing. They might be few in number, but they are not terribly rare.

And yeah, staff cuts in hospitals is one of the biggest problems nurses face these days.

 

[A High Way Man]

I think they should be paid more and I think if you paid them more you'd attract better people and our parliament would likely be better. As for the whole idea that it's a stupid public who picks stupid politicians, tbqh the public only gets to pick from the talent pools of 2 (maybe soon 3?) parties.

BTW as for nurses, they actually get paid plenty imo, it's more just that the work sucks... that's why you have a hard time getting people. I'd say the money could be better spent making sure that there is more staff to lessen the burden on those already there.

more money into research and science to prevent people getting sick in the first place

 

[bigboyjames]

whoever voted yes is a retarted shithbead

 

[impervious182]

Eh, I reckon the more you pay them, the more selfish people you'll get wanting to become pollies. It should be a job you do because it means a lot to you. Can't pay them too little, though, or they'll be too receptive to corruption.

Yeah. I agree, that politicians need to have a passion for change too, but I also think that having a lower (in comparison to other professions such as law) pay doesn't necessarily ensure this. The biggest motivation for many is still power and prestige, rather than the desire to actually change things. (E.g. maybe Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull - certainly, it's not money.)

Sometimes when politicians are too passionate, they have an inability to analyse problems objectively or sensibly. (At first they are popular because of the connection they make, but soon an inability to lead becomes apparent, because of an inflexibility - e.g. Pauline Hanson, who I am quite aware, never became a federal minister, but all the same her initial ideas and disillusionment appealed to a number of voters.)

People who are well educated, generally, can approach problems with more objectivity and solve them creatively and effectively in my opinon.

That, and it's no more worthy a career than teaching or nursing. They might be few in number, but they are not terribly rare.

And yeah, staff cuts in hospitals is one of the biggest problems nurses face these days.

As for the last part, I agree entirely.

 

[Will Shakespear]

i don't think the politicians are stupid

i just think that a more educated populace would mean they couldn't get away with as much as they do now

 

[impervious182]

i don't think the politicians are stupid

i just think that a more educated populace would mean they couldn't get away with as much as they do now

I don't think that they're stupid either and I agree that a more educated populace means that they don't get away with as much.

At the same time, more competition to become a federal minister means there is greater scrutiny and pressure on federal ministers to act appropriately or be replaced by others of equal skill. So increased incentive also results in increased efficiency, I think.

 

[zstar]

i don't think the politicians are stupid

i just think that a more educated populace would mean they couldn't get away with as much as they do now

Politicians are not geniuses at all.

They don't know anymore than you do that's a fact.

 

[blue_chameleon]

Politicians are not geniuses at all.

They don't know anymore than you do that's a fact.

Um, wot?

 

[Trefoil]

i don't think the politicians are stupid

i just think that a more educated populace would mean they couldn't get away with as much as they do now

If everybody where that educated I think we'd be in gridlock because everybody would see something wrong with something.

I think a lot of the populace is generally ignorant of politics by choice.

 

[Stewii]

I would think raising the salaries is deserved. The public service puts them in the spotlight and is a full-on occupation, a demanding job. They are doing the work we voted them in for, so why not pay them properly. They are not paid nearly enough to put up with the workload, media circus, public responsibilities, community work, etc, etc. We don't want politicians who are constantly re-evaluating whether they should change careers and getting weary with their duties!

Whether it would attract "better" politicians is probably not necessarily so, but it would definitely allow for politics to be a more viable career choice and take some money stress off their mind. Politics has a very bare bones budget when compared to companies, and considering the work they do and its magnitude, there is no question that they deserve more. Although people in politics generally do so for more than simply money, more wouldn't hurt - and is a tiny amount of taxpayer's money.

Maybe some won't see bribery and corruption as attractive if they are well paid!

All the whine about Rudd's $600,000 travel - these are very small amounts considering the economic value of whatever he's doing overseas. How silly would we look if we limited his diplomatic endeavors.

 

[Will Shakespear]

I don't think that they're stupid either and I agree that a more educated populace means that they don't get away with as much.

At the same time, more competition to become a federal minister means there is greater scrutiny and pressure on federal ministers to act appropriately or be replaced by others of equal skill. So increased incentive also results in increased efficiency, I think.

no matter what happens, in the forseeable future anyway, we're stuck with a choice between 2 major parties to form government, plus a few other options to pick up seats in the senate

the major parties, at least at the federal level (ffs both sides in nsw are useless) appear to be full of intelligent people who'll try to do whatever it takes to get elected... or they would if they're being rational (like game theory assumptions)

the smart people may not be the actual politicians, but it doesn't matter since everything is (usually) done along party lines anyway

if the brains behind the parties, whoever they may be, know that the people are too smart for some particular populist bullshit law or program or handout to make them popular, it won't be proposed or won't go ahead

plus there are tons of other benefits of a better educated population; better paid politicians only benefits the politicians

 

[banco55]

I'd prefer to see higher salaries and greater restrictions on lobbying etc. when they leave parliament. Ex-politicians getting the Government into shitty procurement deals is likely to be way more expensive then paying them extra money. It would cost about 35 million to pay all federal politicians an extra 200 grand a year. That's a blip in the budget.

 

[incentivation]

In principle I support a pay increase, but the benefits of cabinet ministers extend beyond salary. We obviously need to attract the best people into the top positions, but as NTB said, it is ultimately from a pool of individuals determined by the parties. A pool which sometimes leaves a lot to be desired.

The party machine can often prevent our best and brightest from reaching the upper eshelons of the party. I mean, Barry Jones, a man of supreme intellect, was unable to muster factional support to obtain a key ministry. He would have been an extreme asset to an inner cabinet portfolio (as oppose to science and the environment).

The portfolios should be sub-divided and salaries scaling upwards in terms of relative importance and responsibility (i.e. health and treasury at the upper end of the scale).

 

[Trefoil]

Parliamentary pensions are the most moronic policy. They remove incentives to do the job well because even if you're only elected for one term and you fuck up, you still end up set for life.

NTB makes a good point about the limited talent pool. Imo this is another reason why we need proportional representation to erode the dominance of the major parties.

What limited talent pool?

And Australia's voting representation is generally fine. IRV in the House has its benefits but I can see how STV (as in the Senate) might be better. Either way, be thankful Australia doesn't use plurality voting like they do in America.

 

[Wheelbarrows]

increase my fucking wages.

 

[gibbo153]

i feel quite disappointed to here that from Mr Baird. he is a family friend, and he turns up for lunch sometimes in a classy suit in some classy wheels. federal ministers should take some initiative with their 'pursuit of the countries interests' by taking a pay cut

i think this sort of thing will just come back and bite them on the ass later, because the poor salaries in health and education are going to cause big problems down the track, which they as politicians will have to deal with

 

[Trefoil]

When you vote in the lower house, you are essentially forced to choose between two parties although you may want to vote for a minor party.

That's plurality voting. IRV is preferential and offers third parties far more chance to gain representation.

So although only about 43% a people voted for Labor in the 2007 Federal election they control 53% of the seats.

Now compare that with what it would be like under plurality voting.

I'm kind of a fan of IRV for the House because it allows a clear winner without disadvantaging third parties anywhere near as much as plurality.

I'm worried about stagnation and bureaucracy becoming far more prevalent if parliament splits into like 4 or 5 different parties which all have to try and appease eachother because no party can form Government, which would likely happen under proportional representation in the House..

If we had proportional representation, minor parties like the Greens would have 8% control of the parliament, as opposed to zero.

The Nationals get like 8% and have like an 8% amount of control in parliament, so it's not unprecedented. The Greens have had House seats before, from memory.

IRV does disadvantage transient parties such as the Sex Party, but that may not be a bad thing. In the end, stable, enduring political parties will gain representation (Greens are projected to gain House seats next election).

Another systemic flaw in our system is that where we do have proportional representation is the senate it is heavily skewed towards the minor states.

It's skewed on purpose, but not heavily so.

Imo it is absurd that NSW with its 7 million people has the same number of senators as Tasmania with only 0.5 million.

I don't mind. They deserve equal access to government, and in the end they are still Australians. Anyway, the number of senators per state has little to do with the type of vote allocation system used.

TBH, I wouldn't mind proportional representation in the House, I'm just a fan of the current status quo.