rstuart:
When you drive down the street have you ever noticed that we don't all drive the same type of car? Some people have bought and drive really cheap cars like a Hyundai Getz while some drive a Rolls-Royce. It is the same as when buying the services tendered by a politician bidding on an ballot paper- you DON'T HAVE to buy the cheapest one. This system doesn't require politicians to be paid less. Indeed, I would expect most politicians elected would be paid more than they did now if such a tender process was introduced.
Almost everybody else in society has their wage determined by a market process. Why should politicans be any different?
(Note that when the Liberals were in power they did everything they could to impose a strict market mechanism on us- they wanted employees to bargain directly and individually with employers- that's what work choices was all about!)
Also, it is possible for a professional to return to their previous role. Infact a stint in parliament can even give them advantages and an extra edge.
Lastly, I would consider a job such a farming, fishing, building to be high risk because in these jobs you can easily be physically injured which prevents you from ever again working in the same job or even from ever working in the same industry

I reckon if I was elected and paid half what these guys are being paid, I could easily retire a millionare.

Anybody noticed that the labor party and developers appear to be sleeping in the same bed.

JamesH, Pericles
Houuuuu! you are smart! You want ONLY millionaires to become politicians!
GOOD FOR YOU! Good for the rich people!
What about labours interests? Do you expect from us, from the mass majority of Australians to support your ideas?
Who will represent and support labours interests? How a labour MP can cover his basic needs, his family's basic needs?
You do not like a labour MP! You want ONLY A RICH MP!
In the next life you may be have the opportunity to realize your dreams, but not in this life!
We have to pay our MPs BUT their salary should be logical and fair, not provocative salaries for MPs.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

I have no problem with politicians being paid more -- although I think it should be performance-based -- but I would like to see the penalties for incompetence, deceit and avoidable failure made much greater. Politicians like Howard who lied about refugees and sent troops to die in Iraq for no good reason shouldn't get away with a lost election and a generous pension: they should be liable to prosecution, fines and imprisonment for criminal negligence. Likewise the various NSW Premiers and Ministers for Health who have got the State into the mess it is in today. When your job involves the lives and welfare of thousands of people, the penalty for stuffing it up should be more than just losing your job.

I think the aristocratic class develops when tribal leaders realise they have more in common with other tribal leaders, than the lower members of their own tribe. This is the start of "us and them" style policy making.
Our politicians are supposed to be 'representative'. As James points out, they actually represent a very small fraction of the total population, and guess which sector always seems to get the tax breaks?
I think the true strength of the Westminster system is that elected officials are not supposed to be lawyers or economists; they are supposed to be representative of their constituencies. It is their job to report their constituents' wishes to the national assembly, and decide on policy. The public service should then take over, and implement -as far as possible- those policies.
Of course, this will create real and often comical tensions (a la 'Yes, Minister), but it is democratic.
Offering higher pay doesn't get more caring politicians; it just gets hungrier, greedier ones.
I think we might be better off without career politicians. Perhaps one or two termers would be more appropriate. It will always look good on a resume (if they do a good job).
And I agree with performance based pay. Politicians pay should be linked to the median wage, on a dollar for dollar basis.
For an expansion of this argument, and a chance to vote on your preference, go here:
http://thecomensality.com/avasay/

Woebegone - Scarry As! Rather then help bind business enterprise to responsible citzenship, by representing both with vigor, I find the payroll set for politicians sets politics in satire.

All this hype about 'how good it is to have business experienced' politicians unfortunately is a furfy. I find most lack general life experience, and much less diversity. Due to their comfort zones, the tale tattler environmental aspects booming from the corridors of power, ... the gullible, credulous whoopee-train is no more than a magical mystery tour.... at our expense.

Local Government is particularly lugubrious. We need more transparency in this area given the lack of resources, before we can deal with the self-interest of developers, the regional party stacking or anything near fair.

Not to discredit "goodwork". To point out however, that for many getting a political job is a gravy-train. All you have to do is show you can be 'ocker' and that you can ear-boot the other like a half-baked ape bape star.

It is "a classic example of self-interest being peddled as economic logic or public interest. There is enough hypocrisy flooding the airwaves on this to make even the most cynical politics watcher want to spew."

http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/000177.html

Thanks for raising the question Andrew Leigh, I am not indignant nor ill willed, but rather tired of the shams and shades where there is a strong case to make about the authenticity of a politicians role in the wake of politicians pay: foxes guarding the hen-house?

http://www.miacat.com/