The February 12 announcement by Prime Minister John Howard that a Coalition party room meeting had approved a reduction in federal parliamentarians' superannuation to 9% (from 69.1%) would have gladdened most hearts.
Howard was pleased because he believed the Coalition decision would undercut ALP leader Mark Latham's populist rhetoric; Latham was happy, because everyone but Howard saw it as a back-flip; and working Australians liked it because the perks and bulging pay packets of politicians have long been resented by those who work much harder for much less.
These reforms will do little to end the privileges enjoyed by politicians, however. Howard told journalists at his press conference that the question of any pay rise to "compensate" politicians for the super cut would be determined by the federal Remunerations Tribunal. However, the base pay of politicians and whether — or rather when — it's time for a pay rise is decided by the government under 1990s Remuneration and Allowances Act. Moreover, those currently in parliament retain their super-superannuation.
The base salary for federal politicians is a whopping $102,760 per year, on top of which is an extra percentage for ministers and parliamentary office holders. So Howard receives $267,176 (the base payment plus 160%), Treasurer Peter Costello receives $192,675 and Latham takes home $190,106. Definitely not amounts to sneeze at.
Other benefits include the infamous gold pass, which provides free travel for many former MPs. Former Labor MP Al Grassby, who served in federal parliament for five years 27 years ago as a member of Gough Whitlam's cabinet, ran up a travel bill of $8239 for the first half of 2001 alone.
Costello had the gall to tell ABC Radio's AM program a day before Howard's announcement: "I think for people that are running the country, overall the package compared to the private sector, is quite restrained actually."
Costello explained which parts of the private sector he was referring to, telling AM that his department's secretary earns more than twice what Costello does and still receives a mere 20th of the income enjoyed by a bank's CEO.
According to a report released in May by the Australian Council of Social Service, only 1% of full-time employees, 7% of households, have an income more than $100,000.
While politicians whine about their pay, life for the rest of us is getting harder. On January 19, the South Australian Council of Social Service revealed that during the previous year there was a 17% increase in the people being assisted by welfare organisations in that state. There was an even larger jump — 22% — in the number of people who had to be turned away because of a lack of resources.
The question of politicians' pay packets is not just one of wasting taxpayers' dollars. It's a question of democracy (actually: lack of). Parliamentarians' excessive incomes help ensure that they, like senior public servants, judges and police commissioners, have a stake in protecting the wealth and privileges of Australia's rich from the rest of us. It's a form of corruption built in to the parliamentary system (and one that is willingly accepted by most politicians).
Contrast the token reforms offered by Howard and Latham to the attitude of the Scottish Socialist Party, which won six seats in the Scottish parliament in the May. The SSP's constitution, like that of Australia's Socialist Alliance, mandates that all members of the party elected to parliament will "accept personal pay no more than the average skilled worker's wage", with the rest to go towards progressive campaigns. This helps ensure that the interests of the SSP's MPs remain those of the working class, not the bosses.
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, February 25, 2004.
Visit the