This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/28/australia-politicians-pay

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Are Australia's politicians underpaid? Are Australia's politicians underpaid?
(5 months later)
Many would see such a figure as fair, as the independent tribunal Many would see such a figure as fair, as the independent tribunal that determines parliamentary pay does. Being an MP or a Senator is, after all, a tough job that often demands a pay cut for successful people at the peak of their career. Others undoubtedly see snouts in the trough: a group of self-serving profiteers making money off the public good. And then there are a few who take the – perhaps unpopular – view that our elected representatives should be paid more.
that determines parliamentary pay does. Being an MP or a Senator is, after all, a tough job that often demands a pay There are two main arguments for increasing parliamentarians’ pay: that higher pay will make MPs less tempted to make money in shady ways, and that it will attract higher calibre candidates.
cut for successful people at the peak of their career. Others undoubtedly see The first one was argued by Eddie McGuire on Q&A earlier this week. While discussing whether Arthur Sinodinos may have done something wrong during his time as a director of Australian Water Holdings, McGuire stated: “a lot of these things head back to one place, and that is the fact that we don’t pay our politicians enough.”
snouts in the trough: a group of self-serving profiteers making money off the When Tony Jones pointed out that Sinodinos was not yet a senator at that time, McGuire continued: “He was probably doing so because he knew he was going to become a politician and get paid no money during the biggest period of time in his life where he’d make money.”
public good. And then there are a few who take the – perhaps unpopular – view Rupert Murdoch has previously taken a similar line, praising Singapore’s ministerial pay scheme. Murdoch reckons that "the most open and clear society in the world is Singapore – the cleanest society you can find anywhere – as every minister is paid at least $1m a year and has no temptation to transgress." The Singaporean prime minister takes home almost AUD$2m a year – nearly four times as much as Tony Abbott.
that our elected representatives should be paid more. Unfortunately, there isn’t much evidence to suggest that paying our MPs more would make politics cleaner. Research is indecisive on this point, but seems to suggest that paying public officials more once they’re already making a decent, living wage doesn’t have much of an effect on corruption. Such studies usually point to the importance of transparency in government practice and strong anti-corruption institutions as the primary factors in reducing sleaze.
There are two main arguments for increasing Indeed, Australia already has very low levels of corruption, according to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, ranking ninth in TI’s 2013 report. If we look at parliamentarians’ pay among those countries considered less corrupt, including the Scandinavians, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, only Swiss Federal Councillors earn more. Although members of the executive in Singapore are paid extremely well, parliamentarians are paid about the same as their Australian counterparts. Though salaries vary among this group, these results suggest that the strongest predictor of clean politics among stable, developed countries is a mix of strong anti-corruption institutions and high levels of transparency.
parliamentarians’ pay: that higher pay will make MPs less tempted to make money As for higher pay attracting better candidates, an extensive report released last year in Britain – a country where parliamentarians earn around $120,000 a year – by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority stated:
in shady ways, and that it will attract higher calibre candidates. Nor have we been persuaded by the claim […] that the quality of those offering themselves as prospective candidates has been adversely affected by the level of pay available. We have found no evidence to support this claim and, indeed, there is plenty of reason to suspect that the selection policies and procedures of the political parties are far more important determinants of the quality and character of prospective candidates.
The first one was argued by Eddie McGuire on Q&A earlier Most countries that pay their MPs better (relative to the size of their economy) are less well run than Australia. And although Australian parliamentary pay is already quite high, there are plenty of examples of ineffective members of parliament who would not have been elected if not for the two-party system and patronage practices on both sides of parliament.
this week. While discussing whether Arthur Sinodinos may have done Although parliamentarians deserve to be properly remunerated for the work they do, which is difficult and important, there is no evidence that paying them more will result in cleaner or more effective politics. Institutional factors are far more important – reforming the way political parties and government work will have a much greater effect than higher pay.
something wrong during his time as a director of Australian Water Holdings, It is the ability of Australian institutions and the Australian people to hold politicians to account that will ensure low levels of corruption and effective members of parliament. What we need is more democracy in public life, not more money.
McGuire stated: “a lot of these things head back to one place, and that is the
fact that we don’t pay our politicians enough.”
When Tony Jones pointed out that Sinodinos was not yet a
senator at that time, McGuire continued: “He was probably doing so because he
knew he was going to become a politician and get paid no money during the
biggest period of time in his life where he’d make money.”
Rupert Murdoch has previously taken a similar line, praising
Singapore’s ministerial pay scheme. Murdoch reckons that "the most open and clear society in
the world is Singapore – the cleanest society you can find anywhere – as
every minister is paid at least $1m a year and has no
temptation to transgress." The Singaporean prime minister takes
home almost AUD$2m a year – nearly four times as much as Tony Abbott.
Unfortunately, there isn’t much evidence to suggest that
paying our MPs more would make politics cleaner. Research is indecisive on this
point, but seems to suggest that paying public officials more once they’re
already making a decent, living wage doesn’t have much of an effect on
corruption. Such studies usually point to the importance of transparency in
government practice and strong anti-corruption institutions as the primary
factors in reducing sleaze.
Indeed, Australia already has very low levels of corruption,
according to Transparency International’s Corruption
Perceptions Index, ranking ninth in TI’s 2013 report. If
we look at parliamentarians’ pay among those countries considered less corrupt,
including the Scandinavians, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, and the
Netherlands, only Swiss Federal Councillors earn more. Although members of the
executive in Singapore are paid extremely well, parliamentarians are paid about
the same as their Australian counterparts. Though salaries vary among this
group, these results suggest that the strongest predictor of clean politics
among stable, developed countries is a mix of strong anti-corruption
institutions and high levels of transparency.
As for higher pay attracting better candidates, an extensive
report released last year in Britain – a country where
parliamentarians earn around $120,000 a year – by the Independent Parliamentary
Standards Authority stated:
Nor have we been persuaded by the claim […] that the
quality of those offering themselves as prospective candidates has been
adversely affected by the level of pay available. We have found no evidence to
support this claim and, indeed, there is plenty of reason to suspect that the
selection policies and procedures of the political parties are far more important
determinants of the quality and character of prospective candidates.
Most countries that pay their MPs better (relative to the
size of their economy) are less well run than Australia. And although
Australian parliamentary pay is already quite high, there are plenty of
examples of ineffective members of parliament who would not have been elected
if not for the two-party system and patronage practices on both sides of
parliament.
Although parliamentarians deserve to be properly remunerated
for the work they do, which is difficult and important, there is no evidence
that paying them more will result in cleaner or more effective politics.
Institutional factors are far more important – reforming the way political
parties and government work will have a much greater effect than higher pay.
It is the ability of Australian institutions and the
Australian people to hold politicians to account that will ensure low levels of
corruption and effective members of parliament. What we need is more democracy
in public life, not more money.