I like Pericles' idea:
I think a good addition would be to change advertising laws so that a political party will not be allowed to make any election-time adverts without explicitly outlining a commitment they will make if elected.
That way, they will have no choice but either make election promises, or simply get no screen-time when an election comes up (avoiding what happened last election where hardly any promises or stances were made, just mud slinging).
Aside from effectively forcing the parties further into a position of having pledges to be held to, would actually make election time adverts less of a waste of time (and money) to watch.

And I must say I even agree with Runner too on his points.

As the author, I don't propose to respond to each comment made, however I will make a couple of points.

Some point to the GFC as evidence that expensive executives can get things wrong, which in some cases is clearly correct. However it conveniently neglects the reality that the vast majority of high calibre senior executives are very decent and honourable people who steer their companies with great success. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a point.

Further, to argue that paying a high salary somehow corrupts the office by enticing financially motivated executives, rather than those with an innate desire to serve the greater good, is short-sighted. Yes, some will be attracted by the money. That's the point. And if they have the requisite skills and intelligence to add to the political landscape and steer the country, what's wrong with that?

Even with higher pay we will still have some duds. But it's likely they won't last, because of the deeper talent pool, and competition for fewer senior positions. I don't see how Australia can lose out of it.

The harsh reality is, that for as long as people react so vehemently against the idea of paying politicians generous and competitive salary related to the private sector, we will continue to attract a disproportionately high number of B-Graders to the world of politics.

Daniel your last point is of interest - you propose to link politician salaries to those in the private sector. The inference being that those salaries are commensurate to the sort of work that is being performed. Having worked with many very well paid CEOs my take is that it is the private sector salaries that are out of wack - instead of compounding the problem by increasing politician's wages we should be looking at ways of bringing all wages within some reasonable range. One way this can be achieved is through income tax - say a 90% tax on earnings over $500,000 pa would bring them back in the field.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12725#219859
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12725#219869
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12725#219873

Pericles, sometimes you seem honest, how did you get involved in loony left politics, the most evil system in the world?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12725#219876

daniel: spinspun, i accept your an honest person, genuinely believe it. i have heard the same argument many times before & could not disagree more.

i propose the exact opposite.

Our PM, GG, state governers all have a residence provided, not just a roof either but "full room & board". i suggest that all electorates could have a centrally located, catered residence & office. the local member could recieve NO cash salary at all. that is how it was, many of them were successful older businessmen, who had handed the day to day managment or CEO position over to their son & were now chairman of the board meeting once a month.

such a system would attract successful people who dont need any more money, even decent honest poor people could have a go & live a decent life, in the job.

i further suggest we could do the same with the entire bureaucrookracy, turn the "public sector" into a "national service" scheme in which young people after school could gain "work experience" in junior unskilled, sweep the floor, make the coffee type jobs, could be moved through all departments briefly to get a taste of working in a school, hospital, law court, public works, etc.

This brief taste could give them a much better idea of which "career" suits or enthuses them more. They could then begin a TAFE diploma apprenticeship, studying & working in the same area. Having successfully completed that & assuming they are still enjoying the work, they could move on to a university degree. EG, diploma justice studies, followed by a full university law degree, all free, in return for doing your national service. Another option could be that when qualified they could continue working part time public & part time paid private sector.

They might even decide to go into politics, knowing that they will continue to recieve "full room & board" with all the trimings, but no cash.

...Hey...why not force politicians to travel by donkey over back roads, row a boat overseas and fly "united". Just for starters! Wow...what a saving to taxpayers!

Problem also is that our greatest problem is attracting politicians with even the remotest inkling to actually do their jobs, rather than ride the gravy train.
Increasing the salary does no such thing- it just makes the gravy train more expensive for us, and further attracts the exact wrong kind of person to the office (and really, on what basis of logic do you assume that we are going to attract anything but a scrounger looking for easy money?)

Even looking at most of our business world, we are faced with overcharging monopolies, oligopolies etc that buy out easy targets (the public sector), raise the prices, and cry foul when merely the face of competition actually shows up and try to lobby to have them shut out (American businesses, or internet transactions). Come to think of it, many of our businesses are actually very poorly managed anyway. Who would we pick? Alan Moss? James Packer? Richard Pratt? Perhaps someone who works for Telstra?
Definitely not the kind of people I'd want to attract.

In fact, the only politicians who consistently prove they ARE in the job because they actually want to work on the nation (as opposed to get paid to sit on their arse, or try to use their privileges for tax breaks), consistently rejected pay rises or cash payouts.