Right: Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews is now the highest-paid state leader.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments opposing the salaries Australian politicians receive
1. Highly remunerated parliamentarians are unaware of the living conditions of a majority of Australians
It has been claimed that parliamentarians lose touch with the concerns of their electorates when they earn vastly more than most people whom they are supposed to represent. The core concern is that the more remote politicians become from the life experiences of those who elect them, the less able they are to frame policies that genuinely advantage their constituents. From this perspective high parliamentary salaries are an impediment to representative government. On May 9, 2019, The Guardian published a comment by Amethyst De Wilde in which she stated, 'The question here is: do we want an elite-driven model of parliamentary democracy or a representative one?'
In an opinion piece published on the ABC News site on July 4, 2019, author Tom Dunlop stated, 'Our current system of representative democracy is in fact hugely unrepresentative. On almost any axis you choose...our parliament looks nothing like the country itself. Worse still, it is dominated by professionals who have little experience of life outside the rarefied air of party politics.' Unions Tasmania secretary, Jessica Munday, recently criticised a call for a pay increase from the Tasmanian speaker in the lower house, claiming that it indicated the parliamentarian's remoteness from the living conditions which face most of the state's electorate.
Munday stated, 'When you think of the minimum wage, [the speaker is] earning five times that amount and she's on a wage that most Tasmanians could only dream of getting. It's an absolutely tone-deaf and an out-of-touch comment to suggest that a politician on $190,000 plus extras is in need of a pay rise.'
It has been claimed that governments make inappropriate decisions because, from their position of relative financial privilege, they are unable to appreciate the difficulties faced by those living on far less than they are. This point is made, for example, by those who criticise the failure of successive governments to increase the unemployment allowance, Newstart.
On July 23, 2019, The Guardian featured a reader comment which condemned the federal government for its remoteness from the situation of those attempting to survive on unemployment benefits. The reader stated, 'Everyone is aware that Newstart is much too low and the recipients are struggling just to survive, except, of course, those who inhabit the big white house [Parliament House] on the hill in Canberra.
They, who must be treasured, say that the benefit is only paid to help the unfortunate secure another paid position; however, the treasured lot are so out of touch with most happenings outside their famous bubble, they can't or won't see the actual truth of the matter.'
Similar charges of inexperience and indifference have been raised by other recipients of government allowances who claim that parliamentarians are unaware of the problems faced by those on benefits. One listener comment to ABC AM noted, 'If you make more money than what people on Newstart are getting...[you do not know] what it feels like.
If you've never had to worry about whether or not you can get something as simple as toilet paper, then you're not going to know what it's like.'
Similar accusations were made in an editorial published in The Socialist on July 12, 2018. The editorial stated, 'The haughty attitudes of Liberal and Labor MPs alike show just how out of touch these politicians are. One example is the Liberal MP Julia Banks who recently said that she would have no problem living on $40 a day. Her actual income is $200,000 a year and she owns five houses!'
The same accusation of remoteness from the concerns of those of the electorate who are struggling has been made regarding job shortages. On August 12, 2019, The Guardian reported a statement from Labor's shadow minister for families and social services, Linda Burney. Ms Burney stated, 'The Liberals and Nationals are out of touch with how hard it is to get a decent job - and the [fact that the] economy simply isn't delivering for working Australians.'
In June 2015, then federal treasurer, Joe Hockey, was similarly lambasted for his disconnection from those who cannot afford to buy a home. The Treasurer stated, 'The starting point for a first home buyer is to get a good job that pays good money. If you've got a good job and it pays good money and you have security in relation to that job, then you can go to the bank and you can borrow money...' The Treasurer's remarks were condemned as simplistic, unrealistic and demeaning. They were criticised as indicative of the views of a parliamentarian who 'just doesn't get the pressure families are facing'.
2. High levels of remuneration are not a protection against political corruption
Those who argue that Australia pays its politicians too highly argue that high salaries are not an automatic protection against corruption.
Overseas studies have produced mixed results in terms of the effect of politicians' level of remuneration on their readiness to take bribes or misuse government allowances. For example, a 2017 study on the effects of pay rates on the corrupt behaviour of local politicians in Spain concluded, 'relatively higher wages do not reduce politicians' incentives to be corrupt, so that public sector wages are not an effective mechanism to deter corruption in the case of Spanish municipalities. Despite the fact that politicians earn high wages, some of them may continue to engage in corrupt practices because of their own psychological or moral makeup, or because some of the bribes offered may be too attractive.'
A study published in The Guardian on July 1, 2013, comparing politicians' salaries from a wide range of countries with the level of political corruption detected within those countries has demonstrated no clear correlation between politicians' remuneration and their propensity to act corruptly.
The study notes, 'Italy provides the clearest example, receiving the worst score for corruption and demonstrating the biggest discrepancy between MPs salaries and national income.' This means, of the countries studied, Italy, the one showing the highest level of corruption, was also the country whose politicians were most highly paid relative to the average wage earned by Italian workers. The study concluded, 'It seems we have reason to be concerned that higher wages may not attract individuals with the best credentials on corruption.'
In an article published on December 17, 2013, The Anti-Corruption Resource Centre noted, 'The extent to which salary top-ups can be used as an anti-corruption strategy must be seen in the context of how salaries can reduce or increase incentives for corruption. Evidence in this regard remains largely inconclusive. There is, however, an emerging consensus that increasing salary may not be sufficient for reducing corruption, in the absence of effective controls and management of staff and resources.'
It would appear that of themselves high salaries are not sufficient incentive to eliminate or even reduce corruptions if effective regulatory measures are not also put in place. The same conclusion was made in a wide-ranging 2017 study which stated, 'low wages are not the only cause of corruption; the poor state of the public administration... also strongly affects the corruption.' Again, other efficient ant-corruption measures beyond political salaries are needed to avoid or reduce corruption.Although internationally Australia has a reputation for low levels of political corruption, critics note that that level of corruption is increasing rather than decreasing. There have been many suggestions that the country needs to take action, beyond salary increases for its politicians to ensure that this trend does not continue.
A parliamentary report issued in May 2017 stated, 'Australia continues to be perceived as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. Its score of 79/100 in Transparency International's latest Corruption Perceptions Index gave it a ranking of 13 out of 168 countries. However, its decline on this index in recent years (from a score of 85 and a rank of seven in 2012), and continued revelations of corrupt conduct in the public and private sectors and some unions, highlight the need for continued attention to Australia's anti-corruption and integrity framework.'
Australia's readiness to combat corruption has been criticised in other publications. In a comment published by the Australian Institute of International Affairs on February 5, 2019, it was stated, 'Transparency International (TI) has released its 2018 Corruption Perception Index (CPI). Australia is highlighted as one of the "decliners" although its score remained the same (77) as last year.' Australia has been condemned for a lack of political will to act against corruption. 'For example, [consider] the self-imposed pledges of the Australian government at the 2016 London Anticorruption Summit. Only one of seven commitments has been enacted: the creation of an International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre, actually established by the UK, which Australia has just joined. New Zealand, in contrast, has only one inactive commitment and none that are overdue or have been dropped.'
The Australian Open Government Partnership has noted problems with political finance, donations and lobbying. It has stated, 'Disclosure of political donations is not timely, with delays in publication of party funding of up to 19 months after elections. This means that electors cannot exercise their vote in an informed way and there are increased possibilities of skewing democracy with secret donations and vote buying. It is of little use to the democratic process if the law allows donations to be declared many months after an election. The risks of corruption are heightened by inconsistencies in Commonwealth and State legislation relating to electoral finance, disclosure and lobbying...'
3. Australian parliamentarians are overly remunerated by international standards
Critics of the salary levels of Australian parliamentarian, state and federal, argue that they are excessive when compared to the remuneration received by leaders and elected representatives in other countries around the world.
By international standards, Australia's parliamentary leaders and its members of parliament are among the highest paid. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an intergovernmental economic organisation with 36 member countries, founded in 1961 to stimulate economic progress and world trade. In May 2018, the market research firm, Investors Gold Index (IG) published an analysis of the respective salaries received by the leaders of the 36 OECD countries. The analysis revealed that then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull was the highest paid of all OEDC leaders.
Malcolm Turnbull was paid $527,854 or annum; Alain Berset, the president of Switzerland was paid $482,958 per annum; Donald Trump, the president of the United States was paid $400,000 per annum; Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany was paid $369,727 per annum and Jacinda Ardern, the prime minister of New Zealand was paid $339,862 per annum.
In a report published on May 26, 2018, The Sydney Morning Herald stated, 'Mr Turnbull is not only ahead in absolute terms but also relative to the average worker and gross domestic product per capita.
Only Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto has a higher rate of pay compared with the wages of most workers, at10.8 times the average Mexican pay packet. Mr Turnbull follows closely behind at 10.14, trailed by New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern at 8.6 times the average wage.'
It is unlikely that the Australian electorate considers its prime ministers merit this level of remuneration relative to other world leaders. Their high rate of remuneration does not equate with high levels of community support for Australia's prime ministers. In a report published in May 2018, the Australian Election Study revealed that since 2010 no Australian prime minister has scored more than five out of ten for community satisfaction with their performance.
Australia's federal parliamentarians have similarly high rates of pay relative to political representatives in other countries. A report published in Quartz in March 2014 provided a comparison of the salaries received by Australian parliamentarians compared to those of other nations. Again, Australian MPs are the most highly paid. As of March 2014, Australian MPS received $201, 200 per annum, Italian MPs received $182,000 per annum, United States representatives received $174,000 per annum, Japanese MPs received $149,700 per annum' German MPs received $119,000 per annum, British MPs received $105,400 per annum, French representatives received $85,900 per annum and Spanish MPs received $44,000 per annum.
Critics of this level of remuneration argue that the essential job of an Australian MP is not intrinsically more difficult than that of representatives in other countries. Some defenders of MPs salaries note that the size of the Australian content and the inevitable travel demands placed on Australian federal politicians help to justify their high remuneration. However, it has been noted that members of the United States Congress (representing a country as large as Australia) are paid less and as of August 2018 had not received a pay rise since 2012.
4. High levels of remuneration for parliamentarians promote resentment and hostility among the electorate
Critics of parliamentary salaries being set at current levels argue that the relatively high rate of remuneration parliamentarians receive compared to the average wage contributes to the electorate's resentment and hostility toward politicians.
In 2018 the Democracy 2025 project of the Museum of Australian Democracy and the University of Canberra released research which found that trust in democracy in Australia has dropped from 86 percent in 2007 to 41percent in 2018. This was indicated by falling trust in politicians and political parties, and a lack of confidence in the capacity of the government to address the public's concerns.
Dissatisfaction with parliamentarians' salaries is part of this nexus of distrust and disapproval. There are concerns among the electorate that parliamentarians act out of self-interest, that is, that they are not concerned about the well-being of their constituents and are only in politics for their lucrative salaries. There are also concerns that parliamentarians' performances do not justify their pay rate, that is, that they are either lazy or incompetent and do not earn their high salaries.
The Constitution Education Fund of Australia (CEFA) has outlined some of the bases for popular dissatisfaction with parliamentarians and the salaries they receive. The CEFA's Internet site states, 'CEFA staff are often asked many questions about our Constitution and system of government when attending social events and we always hear a whinge about pollies' pay. We are told things like "our elected representatives are only doing the job for the money" and "that once they get into the Parliament, they're on the gravy train for life".'
Many within the electorate compare parliamentarians' pay rates, which are generally between two and three times greater than the national average, with their own and dispute that these politicians are worth the much greater remuneration they receive.
In a letter to the editor published in The Sydney Morning Herald on December 2, 2012, Brad Patten complained, 'If politicians are getting the same holidays as our teachers, shouldn't they be getting the same pay? There is a huge disparity between politicians and the public servants they represent, many of whom have recently lost their jobs. This year our politicians were awarded on average a $49,500 a year pay rise compared with teachers' average increase of $2100. Politicians are getting pay rises equivalent to a starting teacher's salary, and also the same amount of holidays? You've got to be joking.'
The same type of complaint was made in response to the recent pay rise received by Victorian parliamentarians. Many Victorians consider such a pay rise inequitable at a time when the wages of other workers within the state are being constrained. They are concerned that parliamentarians generally apply one set of standards to themselves and another to the rest of the community.
In September 2019 the Police Association of Victoria published a comment regarding the parliamentarians' salary increase on the Association's Internet page. It stated, 'The state's politicians have pocketed two generous pay rises within months, taking backbencher salaries to $182,000 and making Mr Andrews the highest-paid premier in the land...
This year, state MPs were already gifted a 2.92 per cent pay rise, which took their base salary and expenses to $176,244 and the premier's basic package to almost $400,000.
The decision of the tribunal - designed by the government and made up of three career public servants - undermines a push by the Premier and Treasurer to rein in the wages of paramedics, firefighters, teachers and police.
It has already sparked anger from unions fighting back against the wage clampdown and comes just 77 days after all state politicians received another 2.92 per cent hike.'
The Association's comment underlined the hypocrisy many Victorians believe is shown by politicians' attitude to their own rates of pay and the inflated notion they have of the worth of their work compared to that of the rest of the state. The Association's comment stated, 'Unions took aim at the government, with CPSU state secretary Karen Batt warning about anger over double standards. Victorian Ambulance Union general secretary Danny Hill said paramedics would use the disparity at the bargaining table.
"I was told at one point the tribunal asked politicians how hard they felt they worked," Mr Hill said. "I'm assuming they said four or five times harder than a paramedic, because that's exactly what they've been awarded."'
5. High levels of remuneration are not a guarantee of competence
Those who criticise the salary levels of Australian politicians also tend to argue that these remunerations have not resulted in competent performance.
Dissatisfaction with the calibre and performance of Australian politicians is highest among Australians aged over 50. This is concerning as this is the group which has had most life experience of Australian governments.
The Museum of Australian Democracy (MOAD) has noted that among this group, only 41 percent are confident of politicians' ability to manage the economy. 48 percent question competence in issues of Climate Change; 47 percent doubt government's ability to manage Industrial Relations and Health and Medicare. Moreover, 52 percent of Australians over 65 feel that the Government is run for big interests, whereas only 15 percent feel that it is run for the benefit of all.
An analysis by MOAD of the reasons for this high level of dissatisfaction with politicians' performance indicates that the electorate considers that 'politics as too adversarial, self-serving and disconnected from the needs and aspirations of everyday Australians'.
On December 4, 2018, The Policy Space published an article by Professor Mark Evans, Director of Democracy 2025; Gerry Stoker, Professor of Governance at University of Southampton and the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis and Max Halupka, a research fellow at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra. The authors of this article noted that a number of recent surveys had revealed a high level of dissatisfaction among Australians with the performance of there politicians and that this was spread across all age groups.
The three authors further note, 'Fewer than 41 percent of Australian citizens are currently satisfied with the way democracy works in Australia down from 86 percent in 2007. Public satisfaction has fallen particularly sharply since 2013 when 72 percent of Australian citizens were satisfied.' Voters are concerned 'That politicians are not accountable for broken promises; that they don't deal with the issues that really matter; and that big business has too much power.'
The authors concluded, 'In sum, politicians, government ministers, media and political parties are deeply distrusted because the majority of Australians dislike conflict-driven politics in Canberra which they perceive to be disconnected from their everyday lives. There are three dimensions to this trust divide - perceptions that politicians lack integrity, empathy and simply don't deliver on the issues that citizens care most about. But it is not just about the behaviour of politicians but also about getting things done (e.g. addressing cost of living concerns such as rising energy bills).'
It has been argued that many of Australia's politicians are psychologically unsuited to the job they have been elected to perform and that this is a factor not affected by the level of remuneration they receive. It has been claimed that in order to ensure more competent performance, party should make psychological assessment part of their pre-selection process for political candidates.
Associate professor Denise Jepsen, an organisational psychologist at Macquarie University, who has conducted surveys of the attitudes of NSW Liberal party members to party reform, has stated, 'The risk you run at the moment, without psychological assessment, is that someone who gives a great speech to the pre-selection committee, and has done a few months wining and dining the right people may give a misleading presentation.'
Director of the Mind Group, psychologist Julian Tatton, has noted, 'Voters deserve to know that their candidates have at least reached a minimum level of political competence. To know, for example, whether Joe Hockey's [former federal treasurer] or Tony Abbott's [former prime minister] gaffes are examples of incompetence or just human error.' Currently, it is argued, the electorate has few objective measures of a politician's competence.