paying more often compromises character rather than enhances it. Paying more would not relieve Mr Rudd from his bitterness resulting in him undermining his leader at every turn. Paying more would not have stopped the PM from lying about the carbon tax in order to save her hide. Paying more would not deal with the arrogant pride which dismantled the Pacific deal which had stopped the boats and saved lives. Paying more would not have stopped the faceless men stabbing Mr Rudd in the back as this was a character not pay issue. Saying we now have monkeys is demeaning and untruthfull. Saying that we have a weak corrupt and sleazy Government unfortunately is closer to the mark. It is the cling for power that has corrupted causing independants to snub their electorates for their own little ideologies, keeping a totally rebellious Foreign Minister only because he would bring down the Government if disciplined and pandering to the socialist no matter how low one needs to scoop. More pay would not address any of these issues.

This is delusional thinking, to believe that higher pay means better quality people.

Personally I think we would all be better off, doing away with professional politicans and employing the average person off the street.

As always, the dimension that is totally ignored in all this is performance.

Until and unless we hold politicians responsible for their actions in Parliament, we will be held to ransom by the iniquitous system of patronage and skulduggery that we can see in operation every day.

A workable system should not be difficult to establish. Simply maintain a register of commitments made by politicians when they are schmoozing for our votes, and hold them to it.

If they want to vote in favour of something they had taken a stand against in their manifesto, their vote would be disallowed. Similarly, if they "change their mind" on an issue they supported pre-election, they would not be permitted to do so.

Anything that did not appear, would be "fair game".

After a couple of goes, we the electorate would get the hang of it, asking the probing questions before we go to the ballot box, instead of just whingeing for the next four years that they aren't doing what they promised. Or conversely are doing something, that they promised not to.

The next step would be the really interesting one. Linking pay to the actual performance against their commitments, giving them a specified amount of dollars for ever time they fulfilled their responsibility (once per policy only, of course). This would encourage them to maximize the number of policy "triggers" in their manifestos, and discourage them from omitting anything that they might be called on, to retain "flexibility".

Too simple?

Thought so.

Incidentally, I heard this gem over the weekend.

"In the US, you need to have millions of dollars in order to become a politician. In [my country], you become a politician in order to have millions of dollars"

Sadly, we in Australia are closer to the latter than to the former. If you disbelieve me, show me an ex-politician who is not well off.

The author makes some interesting points, and I applaud his courage in presenting an unpopular position. But on balance, I disagree with him.

It’s certainly true that senior politicians earn considerably less than business people and senior professionals with similar or lower levels of responsibility – for example, most ministers earn less than the heads of the departments they direct. But I have seldom met a politician of any party who was in it mainly for the money, and I think I prefer it that way. And there are senior people in other walks of life – for example, heads of many leading NGOs – who typically earn considerably less than politicians. Politicians deserve to make a living, and money is a motivator, but it’s not the only one, and I fear that if we made politics too lucrative a career it could have unintended consequences.

As other posters have pointed out, there is no clear link between the efficiency of politicians and how much we pay them. In the private sector, financial rewards are (at least in theory) roughly proportional to effectiveness and results. There is no such link between pay and performance in politics. The electorate which decides who to send to parliament tends to vote more at least as much on party as on performance, and has have no control over whether their member is PM or a backbencher. The PM who decides who gets what position is motivate by a range of factors besides putting the best candidate in the job.

Also, there is a danger in politicians’ lives becoming too far removed from the people they represent. Back becnchers’ minimum salaries are already about twice average full-time male earnings. We may not want “average” people running the country, but we want them to understand how their policies affect average people, and I’m not sure a cabinet comprising only people on $375,000+ would do that

The productivity line was in the byline which was written by the editor not the author. And you get higher productivity out of politicians by giving them larger electorates. The more electors a politician services the more productive they are.

Happy to take the blame, and the credit, for my own work.

I suspect that if you pay more all you will get is monkeys with a more discerning palate. It is not just about payment - it is about competence - our system is not designed to recruit competent people, it is designed to recruit people who have the capacity for political infighting to win pre-selection and then win a particular seat - the skills needed to do that are not the same as the skills that are needed to administer and run a government. Paul Keating was smart but not well educated - so when he became treasurer he sat down and listened and absorbed everything treasury was able to tell him about being a economics - his story is no different to that of many other politicians both past and present. Our present lot of politicians include some very well educated folk - Abbott has excellent academic credentials - yet he does not seem to apply these to his role as leader of the opposition - you can go through the whole parliament and come up with the same conclusion - lots of very smart people who seem to leave their brains on the plane when it comes to running the country. How often do we find that once they have left politics they come up with lots of clever ideas to improve the country just look at Fraser and Fisher. Money is not where the problem is - it is the way we elect politicians that demands a certain mindset, a certain person who is not necessarily also able to run the country.