Butch,
Yes it is 2013 and we have skype and video conferencing technology which will be upgraded to high definition, lag free services in the next few years with the rollout of the NBN, there's no need for MP's to be in Canberra for even the amount of time they currnetly spend there, most of the debating and and committee work could be done online.
If it's good enough for the courts to use video links in the execution of their duties it should be so for parliamentary committees.
If people are genuinely interested in civic duty then they should be willing to do it for free or on a part time basis, like the CFA, St Johns Ambulance, SES etc.

The pay was less, but the quality of representatives was probably the same thirty or so years ago before the said politicians decided that as the 'masters', they shouldn't be paid less than their 'servants'.

Thereupon they benchmarked their pay against the pay for the Senior Executive Service (SES) of the federal public service. The SES is the cream of the cream of federal bureaucrats. Whether or not ordinary backbencehers deserved that remuneration is for others to judge.

Now of course the remuneration and allowances have progressed in leaps and bounds and arguably ahead of well ahead of inflation.

What is truly pathetic of the government and all federal politicians is that the retirement value of their own generous superannuation is tied to increases in average weekly earnings BUT the superannuation of public servants who are their employees is only adjusted against CPI. The government ignored an independent report recommending that the anomaly be fixed immediately.

So, unlike pollies's super, the value on retirement of the superannuation that public servants paid into compulsorily for their whole careers is constantly eroded. Not good when one remembers that the greatest bulk of public servants superannuation is not much advanced on the Age Pension, but they get none of the Age Pension benefits.

Rather obviously greed is stronger than principle and fair dealing where politicians are concerned. These are the people who say they are concerned about workers and some going even further to assert that they can be trusted to keep the political 'bastards' around them honest.

PM Rudd is paid more than US President Barack Obama, But Rudd and industrial lawyer and ex-PM Gillard before him treat their own employees most unfairly, welshing on public servants superannuation.

What was that again about higher pay and benefits ensuring better politicians?

The only reason anyone should get into politics is if they want to help people. You can help the most amount of people by making the whole country a better place. If you give our politicians large wages you'll just attract greedy people into those positions. I've waited my entire adult life for someone worthy of my vote. I've run out of patience and decided to run myself. The first thing I'll do if I'm elected is take a 10% pay cut. Find out what other things I want to do and change at www.voteforsanegovernment.com

For decades, all we have heard from politicians is that all pay rises should be linked to increases in productivity.
I would suggest the very purpose of Government is to nurture and hopefully increase the standard of living of all Australians.
The “productivity” of our representatives should be judged by increases in the median (not average) wage levels in their electorates.
When our income goes up, their income goes up.
Rightly or wrongly, we don't pay our politicians to be corporate executives or management. We have a public service to do the actual work. Our Reprepresentatives are there to dictate policy, and give the Public Service direction. We pay our politicians to be Representative, hence the name.
The only way our Reps can know what we are feeling is to live as we do, and to formulate policy based on those feelings.
To be truly representative, our Representatives should earn a representative wage.
As to linking competence to income levels, our PM gets more money than President Obama. Indeed, all White House staffers salaries, including top Presidential advisers, are capped at $172k; significantly less than an Aussie back bencher, and many times less than what they could make in the private sector.
If Americans can be motivated by something other than personal greed, why can't we?
(Mind you, their Congressmen and Senators are notoriously just as greedy as ours, even though not as well paid. Almost all still manage to get enormously rich during their tenure, somehow).
As to linking competence to income levels, our PM gets more money than President Obama. Indeed, all White House staffers salaries, including top Presidential advisers, are capped at $172k; significantly less than an Aussie back bencher, and many times less than what they could make in the private sector.
If Americans can be motivated by something other than personal greed, why can't we?
(Mind you, their Congressmen and Senators are notoriously just as greedy as ours, even though not as well paid. Almost all still manage to get enormously rich during their tenure, somehow).

Grim is right.

We didn't (and couldn't have afforded to) pay market wages to soldiers during World War II, but many volunteered anyway. If politicians aren't motivated by service to the community, then we are better off without them.

There is no point in having highly intelligent, talented people if they are only going to use their abilities to benefit themselves and their friends at the expense of the rest of society. Besides attracting greedy sociopaths, the high salaries also serve to coopt politicians who cannot be corrupted. They soon acquire large investments to protect, as well as expensive new hobbies and new friends, so that they cease to identify with the people who elected them.

There is no good evidence that higher salaries inhibit corruption, as can be seen from the case of Brazil.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/world/americas/public-rage-catching-up-with-brazils-congress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In fact, the high salaries make it easier to hide the proceeds of corruption.

I would like to see politicians paid enough money to do their jobs and live like most people in the community, with perhaps a bonus if they increase the real median income. Not paying them anything would mean that only the rich could serve. The politicians should also be periodically audited after they leave office to look for unexplained wealth.

So long as the electoral system remains as it is, politicians should nominate their own salary (+perks) before elections - whatever sum they like (probably CPI adjusted), then that sum will be printed on the ballot papers along the candidate names and the voter will take that into consideration.

Ideally, we should have a direct democracy with electronic votes and multi-level proxies. Obviously, most citizens have no time to vote on each and every issue, so they nominate a proxy (which they can change at any time). If they fail to vote by the deadline, then their proxy's vote is taken to represent them as well. If their proxy also fails to vote, then their proxy's proxy's vote is used, etc. Parliament will comprise of a fixed number of the "heaviest" proxys at any given point in time. Parliamentarians will debate, but the vote will be made by the people or their proxies.

Now paying politicians (if at all) will become a private arrangement between people and their proxies.