Apparently the former ministers from the Howard government, who are now in opposition, are crying poor. Some are doing it tough without their ministerial salaries, as the difference between being a minister and a mere opposition backbencher is about $100k a year.
It is understood that two informal approaches have been made in a bid to get support from senior Government figures for a shadow ministry pay allowance. The former ministers now have to get by on the base backbencher’s pay, which is $127,060. (Actually this is a furphy … in terms of remuneration package, they are a lot better off than that, when you take into account superannuation, cars, and all the freebies and perks they get – I think a more realistic view of their total salary pacakge would be around $200k).
The Coalition’s new-found interest in the issue of fairer pay for Opposition frontbenchers has coincided precisely with its arrival on the Opposition benches. The Howard government was always firm in its refusal to recommend any adjustment to the system – a stand now regretted by some Opposition figures. Former prime minister John Howard considered the proposal but quashed it because it would have helped Labor.
Among those hit hard in the bank balance by the Liberal election loss was former health minister Tony Abbott. Mr Abbott has daughters at private schools and admits to suffering from “mortgage stress” in paying for the Upper North Shore home bought in 1994. Well, Tony, I have news for you. Maybe its time to either adjust your lifestyle to match your new income ….or else take your chances getting a new job that pays what you think you deserve? Earlier this year former foreign minister Alexander Downer urged people not to be too hard on former Nationals leader Mark Vaile, who was looking for work as a consultant, because he had just had a $100,000 pay cut. Too bad ,so sad! Again, Mark, if politics doesn’t meet your lifestyle needs go find yourself a new career.
I think this is an indication of why people seeing politics as a career is a bad thing. I like the American presidential rule that limits them to 2 terms. I think there’s a lot to be said for people having a limited time in politics, to get in, do a job, and then move on. After a while, people run out of ideas, and become mere timeservers, drawing the salary without contributing much. They also get disconnected from the real world, and develop an entitlement mentality. Turning over our politicians regularly would serve many useful purposes, such as forcing them to have other career experiences outside politics (particularly good for eliminating the party hacks getting parliamentary seats as a reward for faithful party service), and refreshing the knowledge, skills and ideas of the parliamentary group constantly. You’d also get people who are there to make a difference, not those who see a see in parliament as an end in itself and one that provides them with a cushy sinecure.
To be honest, I don’t think politicians are hideously overpaid. The good ones are worth much more. Unfortunately there are too many who are just hangers on …who’d struggle to get a job worth even half what they get in politics anywhere else. These of course are the ones who need to be weeded out. They have little to contribute so why waste space in the parliament? Getting rid of the option to have a career in politics would serve to discourage those types of people, and even if they did make it, they’d be gone in maybe 6-8 years, not hanging around on the taxpayer’s tab for 20 years or more.
I don’t feel overly sorry for them. Everyone has to prepare financially for the future according to their own circumstances. They knew that their income wasn’t certain in the long term and they shouldn’t have over-extended their financial commitments.
As for the whole ‘they wouldn’t contemplate a rise for backbenchers and now it’s come back to bite them’ scenario…well that’s just karmic justice.
To be honest it’s never been pollies’ salaries that bug me, though. It’s their superannuation deals. They work fewer years and yet get enormous benefits later, while the rest of tuck away a little at a time and pray that old age pensions won’t completely disappear by the time we get there.
Oh how my heart bleeds for these poor bastards.
I saw the impoverished Tony Abbott on TV complaining about his salary and his mortgage and any respect I may have had for him immediately went out the window and vanished forever down the drain.
What does he think other Australians do? How much does he imagine the common or garden worker (also with mortgages and children) manages?
Pass the tissues…for tears of laughter. Poor widdle precious, protected fragile greenhouse-insulated pollies.
Opps! Did the big, bad, mean real world intrude a little?
I’d love to see them try to survive and send their kids to private school on what we do.
Bastards. No sympathy at all, only proves that most of them are out for what they can get and everyone else be damned
Yes my heart bleeds. There superannuation and guaranteed benchmarking of salaries until Mean Mr Rudd put the kybosho on that one are very nice and make their salary package very attractive. Why should they be any different from other employees who are demoted or retrenched. Just adjust your life a little.