On further thought we definitely do not pay our politicians in the Parliament of the Commonwealth enough, or they would have insisted that the States pull their heads in, and enforced their superior laws over all inferior legislatures. We probably pay our State Politicians way too much, and local government is just a further parasite on society.

I suggest we double the pay of a Federal Parliamentarian, provided he or she will take any complaint raised against any other member of the Commonwealth and bring it to the Parliament to be dealt with. It is no good saying all persons are equal before the law, and having no way to ensure this is so. If a Federal Member of Parliament was required to bring any complaint laid upon them, from their electorate to the High Court of Parliament, about the law they have made, so that they could either be scrapped or confirmed, they would be worth their weight in gold, as they used to say.

Take the Trade Practices Act 1974, if enforced by contempt proceedings in the Parliament of the Commonwealth, ninety nine percent of local councils would stop a lot of their unfair practices. Ninety nine percent of planning laws offend the Trade Practices Act 1974 as well, they restrict land for house building, and push up house prices. Many of the worst practices by banks and building societies, and lenders of all description, would cease almost immediately if the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 was upheld by a parliamentarian citing a Bank for contempt, and my God, how the money would roll in.

We would not need a stimulus package, we would get a boom from good old honest dealing, and restore honesty and integrity in every industry, stop rorts, and all the homeless would find a home within twelve months. Utopia, not necessarily, but the value of a seat in Parliament would raise the stakes, and we would get the cream of society attempting to become a leader in the Parliament. That would have to be a good thing

The discussion here should recognise some points:

The relative risk factor of being in politics, on which politicians pay and super was traditionally based decades ago, must be discounted by the obvious risk that all in employment now wear. Politics is not that risky, particularly in a "safe seat".

The Superannuation contribution conditions which prevailed until Latham upset the rotten apple cart were always extravagant. If you have a heart for the failed would-be PM Costello, who has declared that he has "to earn a living", on top of an indexed-for-life pension of $175,000 plus, just contact any Financial Services company or actuary who can do the figures, and ask what it takes in today's dollars to buy that pension and you will see that politicians in their 2nd/3rd term are automatically multi-millionaires.

The field of politics has attracted and will attract wealthy people, for the power it bestows. Where it doesn't, it manufactures them. The peanuts-for-monkeys argument just doesn't wash.

Tonights episode on Nine news about the cost of all the ex-priministers should be interesting.

It is amazingly hypocritical that all sectors particularly health and education have cut backs and are pushed for cost effectiveness, yet the huge money pit of ex politicans entitlements is untouched.

Maybe it is the savings made in cut backs on public services like health and education that is used to fund the ex politicans money pit.

That's one way of looking at it Antonios.

>>Houuuuu! you are smart! You want ONLY millionaires to become politicians!<<

On the other hand, you are smart for wanting ONLY politicians to become millionaires.

As rexationary explains:

>>just contact any Financial Services company or actuary who can do the figures, and ask what it takes in today's dollars to buy that pension and you will see that politicians in their 2nd/3rd term are automatically multi-millionaires.<<

I'd like to know exactly what you believe they do to deserve our largesse at this extraordinary level, compared with, say, an entrepreneur who puts his life savings at risk, as well as a massive overdraft, to build a business that employs a dozen people?

On the one hand you have a band of brothers dedicated to extracting the maximum possible from the public teat, not caring as they do so whether they lie, cheat or simply "forget".

On the other you have some poor ignorant sap, too honest to stand for parliament, but who is prepared to risk his health, wellbeing and family life simply in order to build a small business.

Does not compute.

Pericles, I think the original post was advocating that politicians should work for nothing; obviously only the likes of Rudd and Turnbull could afford to do this.
I fully agree we pay the pollies too much. By doing so, we simply ensure they forget what it's like to struggle for a buck. So long as they are in one tax bracket, and the bulk of us are in another... just look at the evidence.
Maybe they should work for the pension, since they clearly believe the amount is adequate to live on.

I think that when perks such as their "superannuation", which is really a pension, are taken into account the pollies are doing all right.
All careers are risky these days, the age of "profit is sacred" saw to that. So long as they are obvious industry lackeys I don't think they deserve more than middle management salary. If they start showing some statesmenship and/or leadership then maybe they can earn more.