Does Australia have too many elitists in positions of power?

Its been said many times that the problem with Australian society today is that the people, in power, or the people making decisions in terms of Government policy and social outcomes do not in fact have to live by those decisions. These people can be classed as the elitist component of our society, however the term for elitist was generally considered to be applied to aristocracy and the like.
Any communist or socialist agenda is to remove these decision makers out of society and place government and social decisions back in the hands of the common people, the ones that have to live with the decisions made. The Nazi governments solution, when in power, was to identify these ‘’Elitists’’ (For want of a better term, we will use this description) and have them arrested and placed in a concentration or work camp.
Of course, we have moved on from such extreme measures, but how does the average working class of Australia deal with so many rich and privileged MPs being elected into our governments.
For the past 20 years, our elected MPs have had financial portfolios that the average voter cannot even think to reach. Examples can be found in Malcolm Turnball and Kevin Rudd. These Men make decisions for the nation that they surly do not have to live by.
And what about other sectors of our nation such as banks and credit organizations ( In this I mean the credit reporting agency ).These institutions are managed by wealthy executives and managers who do not have to live by their decisions, especially when it comes to affording products and services that they offer.
It is hard enough we have become such a paranoid and distrusting society of people towards each other. This can be seen now in the amount of police checks we go through for employment, even for low skilled factory floor positions.
Which brings to Dr Hugh Wirth? What society allows such stupidity from a person of power to become law?

Perhaps once they come to power they become elitist no matter their origins.

It is interesting that MPs superannuation is not linked to CPI and salary rises are way out of proportion to other wage increases despite the muffled murmurings of the impartiality of the Remuneration Tribunal. Perhaps if politicians' salaries were linked to CPI or to % rises in award wages at the lower income end it would be seen as fairer given their salaries and associated benefits are already generous.

“Any communist or socialist agenda is to remove these decision makers out of society and place government and social decisions back in the hands of the common people,”

Not based on what Lenin (a well known advocate and implementer of communist agendas) said
Being:
“”Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing.”

And
“When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state.”

So I fail to see how, based on the theories of communisms, adopted by its most noted practical exponent -
“the common people” would ever get their hands on “government and social decisions”.

Indeed, in the 1920s Lenin’s strategies were to so limit the “common people” and kulaks from getting their hands on anything, that they starved in their millions.

Of course, Lenin died and he was succeeded by Stalin who perfected Lenin’s doctrines and murdered even more of the “common people”, along with anyone who, in his paranoid state, he perceived as a threat (aka the intelligentsia and his fellow political commissars).
But Stalin’s excuse was simple “The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.”

“but how does the average working class of Australia deal with so many rich and privileged MPs being elected into our governments”

Maybe, if they earn more than an average income or own more than one house they should be disbarred from standing for election? However, rich folk get to vote too.
So, should we disenfranchise the wealthy and deny them their right to vote, in the name of the “working class”?

Somehow, as a libertarian, who supports the values of democracy and universal suffrage, I find such notions grossly offensive.

And I do know that for an absolute certainty, that communism and socialism have nothing to offer anyone

- other than the lies and deceits of small-minded, envy driven political opportunists who are out to gain power by beguilling the feeble minded and gullible.

Dear Col,
All men have a gift and it is their passion so spend your energy developing your full potential and don't worry about the grass in K Rudd & M Turnbulls back yards for life has a way sorting that out.
Life wasn't meant to be easy as the other Malcolm said. A good character is built in hard places as you build your testomny of your life. The only one you realy affect with your choices is you. I try not to be an aginer and be an encourager instead as I first reap the benefits of joy instead of sorrow and depression.

Oscar
Pelican is right in this: It wouldn't matter who you put in.

The problem is not in the selection process. The elitism is in the fact of making decisions by political process in the first place. The alternative is to leave people free to make their own choices based on property and consent, rather than having an elite of politicians, whether elected or not, dictating to everyone else.

Being a grouch is one thing, oscar. But this particular whinge belongs in the sixties, along with factory picketting, BO and really bad haircuts.

Where on earth did this one come from, for example? Certainly not from the history textbooks:

>>The Nazi governments solution, when in power, was to identify these ‘’Elitists’’ (For want of a better term, we will use this description) and have them arrested and placed in a concentration or work camp.<<

Errrr... you may be thinking of Pol Pot, and his Year Zero.

"Markets, schools, newspapers, religious practices and private property are outlawed. Members of the [previous] government, public servants, police, military officers, teachers, ethnic Vietnamese, Christian clergy, Muslim leaders, members of the Cham Muslim minority, members of the middle-class and the educated are identified and executed."

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pot.html

Pol Pot was communist.

Or perhaps you had Mao's Cultural Revolution in mind?

"As a first step, Mao closed China's schools and established the Red Guards–groups of youths who assaulted traditional values and bourgeois culture, attacked intellectuals, and belittled certain party officials. As the revolution escalated, many elderly people and intellectuals died in the violence directed against them"

http://www.athenalearning.com/programs/peoples-republic-of-capitalism/a-history-of-the-cultural-revolution

Mao was - oh yes. Communist.

The Nazis, on the other hand, were extremely proud of their elite.

So long as they were Aryan, of course.

But if your main concern is the wealth of our leaders, I fail to see how that can be prevented, or even whether it is desirable to prevent them from becoming well off.

There is in fact much to be said for a parliament where we don't pay them salaries at all, instead relying upon them having been sufficiently savvy in their business life, not to require one.

And we could disallow corporate donations at the same time, to eliminate the possibility of corruption.

Not that there have ever been any backhanders for public works projects such as the Sydney Harbour Tunnel. Or any other, come to that...