Certainly not as much as they get now - sums that they wouldn't get in any real jobs that they could manage to get. Politics is just a cushy number for no-hopers.

“Certain” politicians? ALL politicians.

The idiot in my federal electorate - got 75% of the primary vote from other idiots - has never said a word since he was elected many years ago; and he gets $300,000 for sleeping on the back bench!

The money now paid attracts only the worst sorts of people.

Public Service bureaucrat salaries have become unethical due to the simple fact that they don't reflect merit !

Payments to politicians should be suspended until they apologise for, and amend, budget deficits, sluggish economic growth, and falling living standards.

Then, there's mass immigration, identity politics, and the dividing of the country: shocking antisemitism; a two-tiered society with different rules for different people.

Net Zero and the consequent massive increases in electricity prices. The destruction of industry.

Huge increases in housing prices and rents.

The multicultural mess the uniparty has turned Australia into.

The unwillingness of the Albanese Communist-style regime to take interest in its main task - to protect the country. Albanese's close relationship with a Communist dictator.

The NDIS.

Consultative committees instead of action.

Talk of slashing politicians’ salaries is good for a bit of a vent, but I doubt it would give us better public servants. If anything, it might just restrict the field to the independently wealthy retirees, or those who are already a part of the political machine.

That’s hardly more democratic.

Perhaps the issue isn't how much MPs are paid, but whether they’re held accountable for what they actually do? If there were more performance metrics, transparency, and consequences for poor governance, I doubt people would care so much about the salaries.

Politicians are presumably our representatives.
(I hear muffled laughters, but this is the theory anyway)

If we hire a lawyer to represent us in court, or a babysitter to represent us in parenting, then we negotiate their remuneration and follow up as agreed.

The same should be with our representatives in parliament:
whatever is agreed in each electorate between electors and their candidate(s), if that candidate be elected, then their electors should pay him/her whatever was agreed.

And most electors probably like their representative to continue representing them full-time throughout, not go off and build themselves another career as government ministers, so it would not be surprising if they include a clause in their agreement to reduce their candidate's pay should they become a minister!

Such an arrangement goes a long way to ensure that politicians represent us and not the state: he who pays the piper calls the tune!

Remember the famous man that said if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. I beleive the above commentor is exactly right again.
Instead of rating elected persons of what they recieve in remunermation.The debate should have happened before an election or for ever hold your peace. Some persons are politically bias no matter of election results. We have elections to settle the dust,but it causes nothing but grumbles from from the same suspects again and again.

door,
you're failing to consider the artificial price hikes for peanuts !

I heard that Inman Grant Sheila is on $400 Grand/year. For what ? I must say I'm bitterly disappointed to learn that she was put there by Morrison.

They should be paid once every 3 months, and their payment should be pro rata in relation to service to their constituents and their accomplishments, not how well they serve a party or donor class.