I wouldn’t be Queen for a hundred pounds,” said Alice.
A predictable public outrage followed the announcement this week that ACT MLAs are to get a pay rise. Most of the fury was directed at the fact that the Chief Minister is to get a pay rise of 24 per cent. It was the tall-poppy syndrome in full flight. It is never a good time for politicians’ pay rises, in the eyes of the public.
However, good governance requires reasonable salary levels for the job done. Good people are not going to seek the job unless the pay is reasonable. Pay is not everything. Many thing motivate people to go into a particular job or vocation. Altruism, fame, lifestyle, excitement, security are among a range of reasons for doing a job, in addition to money. However, money will always be a significant factor. Very few people, other than the independently wealthy, will do a job for nothing. Also, there will always be both self-aggrandising people and people acting with the best motives willing to stand for public office even if the pay is poor.
The argument for better pay is that it is important for the ACT not to unnecessarily cut out good people because the pay is too poor. Some argue that the present lot of MLAs are of such poor quality they do not deserve a pay rise. Conversely, you could argue that the pay is so poor that good quality people were not attracted.
The sticking point this year has been the large percentage increase. While governments and private-sector leaders are urging pay restraint, they look hypocritical accepting a large percentage increase themselves. This year’s trouble arises from the fact that last year, Chief Minister Kate Carnell urged the ACT Remuneration Tribunal not to award any increase because of the drive to eliminate the Budget deficit. The tribunal wanted to give an increase but felt it could not given there was no call for one, but it said at the time it would grant an increase in the future. That time has come given there is less Budget pressure. And the catch-up for last year has caused a difficulty. The Chief Minister will have to wear that; it was of her own making.
But she should not have to cop the petty quibbling about whether the head of government of this territory is worth $162,750 plus a car. If anything that is under-paying the position, not over-paying it. The job requires huge sacrifices of personal and family time, constant public spotlight; incessant pressure from all sides, job-security dependant on an ephemeral majority on the floor of the house; a requirement to be accountant, lawyer, education and health expert; and exponent of the best human-relations practice.
Comparisons with other jurisdictions bear scrutiny. The ACT Chief Minister is paid less than all other heads of government bar the Premier of Tasmania. Tasmania has a smaller economy than the ACT. Its average wage is less, so it can offer a lower salary to attract people. There is an argument that the ACT Chief Minister should be paid more than the Premier of South Australia and perhaps Queensland and Western Australia as well give that the Chief Minister here has to deal with local government matters as well. There is an argument that our MLAs and Ministers should get equal or more than those of other jurisdictions because there are fewer politicians per head of population in the ACT than any other jurisdiction, so their electorate work must be greater.
Our four Ministers (including the Chief Minister) have to cover more portfolios per head than any other state or territory so have an argument for higher pay.
The people of the ACT should refrain from knee-jerk reactions against more pay for politicians for or an increase in the number of them. Poor pay and few politicians means poorer representation.