The bottom line is that politicians of Bishops calibre (or actually, lack of it), aren't worth $300K a year.
Perhaps we need reminding that the position of MP, many many decades ago, was a voluntary position. Then somehow, the corporate "pay peanuts and get monkeys" attitude started to prevail, and the renumeration started, and never stopped going up until public outrage contained the increases somewhat.
The problem today, is - just as in the corporate sector - the pay is no longer peanuts - but we still get lumbered with monkeys.
As peterc005 says, Bishops record of outstanding progressive ideas, infrastructure development proposals, and her initiation of economic advance programs, is dismal, to say the least.
She is the epitome of a classic "bench warmer", and she has advanced "through the ranks", not on merit, but on who she knows, and the seat she holds.
As much as I admire Dick, I think he has taken a particularly narrow view of Bishops value to the nation.
I tend to support John Laws approach to politicians renumeration and expenditure - give them all a set amount for their salaries and expenditure annually, and let them pay their expense accounts, employ their advisers, researchers, and general hangers-on, out of that set amount.
Once the initially-allocated amount is gone for that year, it's all gone, and there can be no requests for further funding. That'd see some value for money spent.
After all, Shires get Federal grants for roads and other projects, that are set amounts. The Shires have to get maximum value out of those grants, they are a fixed figure. No reason why pollies shouldn't be operating under the same system.