Ugghhhhhh fr why are you becoming a politician in Aus if you just hate democracy and transparency. Politicians should earn median wage. They're all pricks whose only interests are their own.
this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2025
28 points (96.7% liked)
Australian Politics
1596 readers
48 users here now
A place to discuss Australia Politics.
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone.
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australia (general)
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The only problem with this idea is that it could result in people who would be very good politicians choosing not to go into politics because they can earn more money elsewhere. This is especially true of people who are coming from unprivileged backgrounds. If they don't have a partner who makes a huge amount to support them, and they don't have family wealth to rely on, but they do have qualifications that would allow them to make more than median wage, if politicians only made median wage, it might not be economically feasible for them to go into it.
Imo the best politicians are those who aren't monetarily motivated. Obviously earning enough to live comfortably should be provided, but if the median earner in Australia isn't living comfortably then that is a failure of our politicians. How can someone who earns over 100 000 dollars a year and is insulated from the hardships of the common Australian be expected to really take those issues seriously in parliament. Fill parliament with people who can't afford homes and the housing crisis would be solved tomorrow. The reality is politicians take the issues that effect them the most seriously. And the issues that effect them currently are the issues of the wealthy.
fr why are you becoming a politician in Aus if you just hate democracy and transparency
People who care about those things don't get the support of mass media major shareholders, huge financial backers, and other corporate interests that have the power to more easily sway elections.
The bottom line is our electoral system is dominated by people who don't benefit from democracy or transparency. Bad politicians aren't an outlier or corruption, but the system working as it's been built to.
Yeah it's total bullshit. One of the good things about social media I feel is people getting more of their information from non corporate sources but then again, social media for the most part is very corporate.
Yeah, astroturf (both political and commercial marketing) is common but at least it's a lower barrier of entry to get heard, more grassroots can spring up.
Happy cake day!
Cheers mate!
Most already own investment properties, so we could drop their wages to 40K/year and they'd still be above median wage.
Sure, what I'd really like to see is the absolute maximum a politician can earn from all sources be capped at median wage. If you have investments and you earn more than median wage anything excess is taxed and you don't earn a wage for working in parliament
I found out from this post shared by Elizabeth Watson-Brown, Greens MP for Ryan:
In one of the first acts of the new Parliament, Labor have made a sneaky change to procedure in the House of Representatives that means major party MPs won’t need to go on the record as often on how they vote.
The new rules means that when 6 or less MPs vote on one side, the votes of the majority - typically the government and the opposition - won’t be recorded.
The government wants to let their MPs off the hook, so they can go home to their electorates without having to justify their voting record. It’s about protecting themselves, not serving the public.
The combined major party vote is at historic lows and this is reflected in a crossbench that is larger than ever, but the major parties would rather hide than be honest with the people about what they’re voting for.
What this means is that resources like "They Vote For You" will be less valuable, because any issue where Labor and the LNP agree, along with half the cross-bench, you will know who voted against it, but you won't know if the others voted for it or abstained (or were merely not in Parliament). It has the effect of making it much harder to prove times when the major parties act in unison, and thus harder to make accusations that they are "both the same" (or at least are "the same" on a particular issue).
You may have 'accidentally a word' in the title here, FYI:
and to avoid recording the names of MPs who on some motions
Thanks. Fixed.
Doesn't seem too unreasonable. If the vote is overwhelming it's not of that much concern how a handful of members voted. And the information will apparently be recorded, just after the fact rather than holding up proceedings.
This is extremely unreasonable. It should be on record how an individual MP voted on every single bill. How else are we supposed to hold them to account?
And the information will apparently be recorded
Oh? Where did you read that? From what I could find, they only seem to be recording the names of people who voted in the minority. There's no way to differentiate between non-voters and those who voted in the majority.
The names of the Members who are in the minority shall be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Given the amount people are up in arms, you'd assume they're hiding who those 6 people are entirely (and even if they were, it'll really only benefit fringe mp's like the Greens). Sure, it lumps the yes votes with non-attendance but if the vote is overwhelming I don't think a few people not showing up is of much concern to the public interest. Plus the crossbench is well over 6 people so if it's just the major parties this won't even trigger.
Huh? Can't you just assume that if they were a sitting member at the time and their name isn't in the 6 or less that voted nay then they voted yay?
Seems like a nothing burger ..
No, you definitely can't. A lot of votes happen without everyone attending. Popular tools like They Vote For You look at the Hansard record of who voted to determine how they vote. If they don't show up as having voted, those tools aren't going to just presume they would have voted some way.
If someone didn't attend a likely majority vote then I most certainly will assume they agree with the majority, and will treat them as such.
You can't even know if they were in Canberra at the time. Many politicians may have been in their home division, unwell, in in a meeting, or in a pairing arrangement with someone on the other side.
More to the point, as I said in the previous comment, most people aren't looking at individual politicians' individual votes and also cross-referencing how their colleagues voted in votes they didn't attend. Certainly tools like They Vote For You won't do that, and that's how most people are going to evaluate politicians' actions.
If they really wanted to be counted either not supporting or supporting a bill depending on where the minority sat, then they'd make the effort to get in and vote, otherwise it can be assumed they are sideing with the majority. They are voting with their actions.
Especially if they sat by and said nothing while their party made these changes to the standing orders.