Vic pollies get a pay rise.

Corndoggy · Senior Member

Vic pollies get a pay rise.

Craig1 · Guru

Yep, because they claim it is " an Independant Tribuneral " appointed by Pollies, but answers to no one.

Sarco Harris · Senior Member

It surprises me that the "Independent Remuneration Tribunal" consists of only 2 people!

www.vic.gov.au/members-victorian-independent-remuneration-tribunal

86GTS · Guru

Sarco Harris wrote:
It surprises me that the "Independent Remuneration Tribunal" consists of only 2 people!

www.vic.gov.au/members-victorian-independent-remuneration-tribunal

Having a small tribunal saves taxpayers money.

dorian · Guru

86GTS wrote:
Sarco Harris wrote:
It surprises me that the "Independent Remuneration Tribunal" consists of only 2 people!

www.vic.gov.au/members-victorian-independent-remuneration-tribunal

Having a small tribunal saves taxpayers money.

Let's hope it's a part-time job.

Craig1 · Guru

Read their brief c v, says it all, an automatic rubber stamp for a raise, certainley not being earned a t m, ask any health care, ambo cop, aged care etc

DMaxer · Guru

I don't have any issues with politicians being properly rewarded as it is a totally consuming occupation. What I have an issue with is some of the dunderheads that manage to get elected and do not have a clue what they are doing. The recent bunfight in the Federal arena about staffing is a classic example.

I understand that members of parliament need adequate staff in their electoral office as they would have a mountain of work, everything from Mrs Bloggs complaining about Centrelink to Mr Brown wanting a telegram from the PM for his parents fiftieth wedding anniversary. I think they are presently staffed with about four advisors, that is fine. What I detest is the fact that some are so dumb they need four advisors to explain legislation and its impact to them. If they can't understand legislation how do they expect the general public to do so. It is not as if they are drafting the bills, that is done by the parliamentary draftsperson. It is not as if there are a million bills going through the House either and when some do, it is three readings over several weeks if not months. There are debates on the merits, there are meetings on the merits and there is assistance from the library. How do you need four people unless you are a total mental bankrupt?

I know from my own career if something arose out of the ordinary you just read the legislation, looked for any updates and commentary and proceeded. In those early days this required a library full of books where today it is all online with commentary, cross referencing and analysis all at the push of a key.

I don't know anyone else who applies for a job and before they even start wants to know who is going to do it for them even though that is what they were elected to do and also well paid to do.

-- Edited by DMaxer on Tuesday 28th of June 2022 10:18:36 AM

Craig1 · Guru

Albo has got the Teals nickers in a knot, cutting that assistance back to ONE, in Federal Parliament.

BUT this is Vic, so dont know about them for assistants

DMaxer · Guru

Only a few have their knickers in a knot Craig. The closet liberal is leading the charge but quite a few are smart enough to say nothing. Surprisingly the Greens have remained silent. I wonder why. I realise the thread is about Vic politicians but this lot also just got a rise as well.

Mike Harding · Guru

DMaxer wrote:
What I detest is the fact that some are so dumb they need four advisors to explain legislation and its impact to them. If they can't understand legislation how do they expect the general public to do so.

It is my opinion that, nowadays in some cases, ignorance of the law should be a valid defence.

I believe it was the Chief Justice of the high court of Australia who a few years past said that "Opening the tax act was like stepping into a parallel universe." If he can't understand it what chance have I?

Whenarewethere · Guru

Mike Harding wrote:
DMaxer wrote:
What I detest is the fact that some are so dumb they need four advisors to explain legislation and its impact to them. If they can't understand legislation how do they expect the general public to do so.
It is my opinion that, nowadays in some cases, ignorance of the law should be a valid defence.
I believe it was the Chief Justice of the high court of Australia who a few years past said that "Opening the tax act was like stepping into a parallel universe." If he can't understand it what chance have I?

During a discussion with my accountant, one year he mentioned that it would take him over a year to read all the new legislation.