Gillard should go!

[redandblack]

Fair enough, smac, but I'd put forward these points.

Alan Joyce's company hasn't paid a dividend to shareholders for years, so the company should not have afforded the pay rise. Joyce's decisions have led to a massive half-year loss. Joyce's pay rise was bigger than the Prime Minister's total new salary.

Rupert Murdoch's company has been performing badly for years. He controls the voting and his organisation is corrupt. His salary is about 100 times the PM's salary.

The Australian economy is the envy of the world and although we all have our own interpretations of who is responsible for that, I can only quote Tony Abbott saying we have 'major bragging rights'. Labor have governed through a GFC and now through a European meltdown and we're in excellent shape.

The PM's salary is set by an independent tribunal, nothing to do with the PM.

Thanks for that, smac. We might not totally agree,but I think your discussion points are valid and I think my analogy is also valid.

[redandblack]

Especially Smac when there are so many people working in companies around Adelaide and the rest of the nation that have not had a pay rise at all in the last two years, or something ridiculous like a .5% increase. If the people have to suffer then the pollies should take their share of it as well IMO, link politicians wages to the community, if we get .5, then so do they!

So do you include executive salaries in that, too, Soj?

[southee]

$450,000 for running a country.

$6,000,000 for running an airline.

$48,000,000 for running a corrupt newspaper empire.

It's all relative.

terrible analogy

Why?

Dutchy may have his own reasons, but my take is this.

Alan Joyce and Rupert Murdoch had salaries granted by their respective Boards - their employers, if you like. Their companies can afford such payments.

Our politicians have just slashed spending to many areas that concern their employers - the people. Their company (the people) cannot afford such payments (or we wouldn't have needed to cut spending, would we?).

You can't have an issue with massive increases to some and not others - $90k is still massive, even if it pails in significance to the Joyce payrise. It's 1.5 times average wage - as an increase!

Very well said ...

[redandblack]

Southee, mate, how about quoting my answer and saying the same

[Q.]

It's interesting to see the public gloss over the finer details, specifically that which sees the reduction in allowances etc, which basically leads to greater accountability in the use of public funds for individual purposes.

Hysteria is much more fun than critical analysis though.

[southee]

Southee, mate, how about quoting my answer and saying the same

Because he sums it up beautifully.

Well crafted and written.......and he speaks the truth.

I had nothing more to add to it. I was like reading a fine piece of Literature.

[redandblack]

It was beautifully written, southee, I agree with you.

But I thought my reply made some good points and it was disappointing to see you ignore it.

Ah well, I'll just have to battle on, I suppose

[Sojourner]

Especially Smac when there are so many people working in companies around Adelaide and the rest of the nation that have not had a pay rise at all in the last two years, or something ridiculous like a .5% increase. If the people have to suffer then the pollies should take their share of it as well IMO, link politicians wages to the community, if we get .5, then so do they!

So do you include executive salaries in that, too, Soj?

Yes, including all novated leases and whatever else is the go!

[Dutchy]

Agree with smac.

The PM is in the position to serve the people of the country, their motivation for the position should not be the almighty $$$.

[redandblack]

Well it isn't.

It's set by an independent tribunal and isn't a particularly high salary.

What parts of my reply to smac do you disagree with

[Q.]

Agree with smac.

The PM is in the position to serve the people of the country, their motivation for the position should not be the almighty $$$.

I'd say money ranks a distant second to things like an individual's vaulting ambition, need for influence, thirst for power.

[GWW]

Is there anything stopping the Govt scrapping the Independent Tribunal and legislating for perhaps CPI increases each year.

I doubt most people care that its independent when firstly it was created by the Govt, and secondly the outcomes are so poor for taxpayers.

[Jimmy_041]

Agree with smac.

The PM is in the position to serve the people of the country, their motivation for the position should not be the almighty $$$.

I'd say money ranks a distant second to things like an individual's vaulting ambition, need for influence, thirst for power.

They get to live in Canberra for half the year as well

[redandblack]

Good point, Jimmy

[overloaded]

I'd say money ranks a distant second to things like an individual's vaulting ambition, need for influence, thirst for power.

I think this is the reason most of them are in it. Anyone of them could step out into the corporate world and double their salary but they choose not to - they are in it for the ego IMO which is not a good motivator.

[smac]

I am also yet to hear the independent body decide that the politicians are not worthy of a payrise, their independence would cost them their role, I'm sure.

Politicians also have direct influence over the economy yet don't face any consequence until election day. Even then, half of them are in safe seats and the ones who do get booted take a nice little pension away with them (could even argue that those in safe seats are the senior politicians who have most influence over policy and don't have true accountability).

[gossipgirl]

They should be paid on performance only. Should have predefined Key Performance Indicators e.g based on keeping election promises etc etc etc

[redandblack]

PM stops the perks

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/julia- ... 6210627507

[smac]

Perk. Singular, not plural. Many more to go!

[redandblack]

One perk, many perkees