GT protects Chairman's Lounge membership

[industry insider]

GT has named QF the safest airline again. CL membership secure for another year.

Those freebie Sunrise flights have allowed GT a unique insight into Qantas safety and he has used his 45 years experience as a plane spotter to bring the public his informed well reasoned comparison.

https://www.traveller.com.au/qantas-tops-airline-safety-rankings-h1kscz

[Chronic Snoozer]

AirlineRatings.com (http://airlineratings.com/) compiles an annual list of the world's safest airlines using 12 criteria including major safety incidents, the age of the fleet and the number of new aircraft, and the airline's profitability ‘Profitability’?

[0ttoL]

Whereabouts does AirlineRatings disclose this conflict of interest?
If they were recommending purchase of Qantas shares they would have to disclose if they hold any. Different if it is a perk?

[SOPS]

Age of fleet? GT really stretches the truth!

[Chronic Snoozer]

Age of fleet? GT really stretches the truth!
He can't handle the truth!

The World's safest airlines in 2019 (http://theflight.info/the-worlds-safest-airlines-2019/)

Jetstar, VA then Q

[KRviator]

Whereabouts does AirlineRatings disclose this conflict of interest?
If they were recommending purchase of Qantas shares they would have to disclose if they hold any. Different if it is a perk?From their Editorial Policy: (https://www.airlineratings.com/editorial-policy/)
Any member of the staff who accepts any inducement from any third party in relation to the writing or presentation of a report or photograph will be instantly dismissed.

Oh, check their address, still the home of the 7 West Media group (http://www.sevenwestmedia.com.au/contact-us/):
Airline Ratings PTY Ltd.
Newspaper House, 50 Hasler Rd.
Osborne Park, 6017
Western Australia
Phone: +61 41 7936610
Email: [email protected]

At least they've gotten a third-party to hide their ownership of the airline ratings website this year!

[Rated De]

Whereabouts does AirlineRatings disclose this conflict of interest?
If they were recommending purchase of Qantas shares they would have to disclose if they hold any. Different if it is a perk?

Young James Shipton head of the Corporate Regulator ASIC, (son of Roger and appointed by Kelly O'Dwyer who held his Dad's old Liberal Party seat) is more than likely a member too, soft corruption reigns supreme!

As Upton Sinclair remarked:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

[The name is Porter]

Go on to the website and ask him if he is a member of the CL. It gets taken down quickly, so keep re-posting til he answers.

[Paragraph377]

Sadly, TV viewers enjoy his ****e hence the networks keep paying him to cover aviation stories. But that’s ok, let the 99% of Sunrise viewers listen to him. The other 1% of us know he is a complete ****** with no ‘real’ aviation experience. And yes, the 1% of us who are in aviation also know he is in the back pocket of a particular airline. GT = muppet.

[terminus mos]

I don't know how this twit, GT, can get away with publishing safety ratings for airlines based on not much more than opinion and who gives him upgrades and CL membership. GT has zero actual technical qualifications or licenses.

When comparing GT's safety ratings with those of two subscription sites used by large companies to determine airline and travel policy for thousands of employees, there are some significant and potentially dangerous differences.

My company's legal department is of the opinion that GT's disclaimers are invalid as the site offers the very advice (airline safety ratings potentially affecting a choice of airline based on an "assessment") from which it seeks to disclaim itself and that the user isn't required to "agree" to the disclaimer prior to using information from the site.

Consequently, GT may find himself in court one day, based on the ratings which are completely opposite to the sites used by professionals.

[machtuk]

Remember the fools like GT are there spewing their rubbish to the masses via the grubby media, he's not there to appease the minority in aviation! The Joe public buy this crap,they lap it up! P377 has it correct.

[neville_nobody]

You would have assume that he isn't in the Chairman's Lounge as their own code of conduct states:

Airlineratings.com must disclose material conflicts of interest that could be seen to affect the accuracy, fairness or independence of their reports.

I can't see how you could be in charge of such a website and be in an invitation only airline lounge.
Unless there is some legal ruling that excludes being in such things doesnt constitute a conflict of interest.

[rjtjrt]

Is it known as a fact that he is a member of CL?

[Paragraph377]

You would have assume that he isn't in the Chairman's Lounge as their own code of conduct states:I can't see how you could be in charge of such a website and be in an invitation only airline lounge. Unless there is some legal ruling that excludes being in such things doesnt constitute a conflict of interest.

And I cant understand why Politicians and even CASA Executives (DAS) are given CL also. Isn’t that a conflict of interest, integrity issue, poor Governance?

[Rated De]

Qantas won’t say how it selects the people it gives membership to and nor will it say how many members there are.

It is a fair bet, that most of the judges, politicians, regulators and overseers of the Corporate wasteland formerly known as egalitarian Australia are in it.

Get them all involved and nobody says a thing..A rather small club of "influence" soft corruption Australian style.
Before being involved in any litigation against Qantas, it might be wise to ask the presiding judge whether or not he/she is a member..

So how much does this generosity cost Qantas shareholders? It’s impossible to say because — in yet another indication of the operation’s secrecy — the Chairman’s Lounge doesn’t get a mention in the Qantas annual report.Qantas says the cost of running the lounge is “commercial in confidence”, an indication on how important the airline sees the lounges to building and maintaining its business.

[Paragraph377]

It’s funny how ‘some’ organisations give free exclusive memberships to Politicians and political parties and even donate money to certain political campaigns (a bit of internet research even shows when and how much!) Now some folk might call that ‘lobbying’ or ‘acting with good moral intent’. Where I come from they call these things “legalised bribes and payoffs”.

I always laugh when I see companies claim ‘commercial in confidence’ over matters that technically really aren’t a true commercial in confidence matter at all. But hey, sociopaths and narcissists always think everybody around them is stupid and don’t have the intelligence to understand how the system is played.

[neville_nobody]

And I cant understand why Politicians and even CASA Executives (DAS) are given CL also. Isn’t that a conflict of interest, integrity issue, poor Governance?

Yes 100% agree, especially the Minister of a regulator. How on earth can a regulator take hospitality from those they are supposed to oversee?
This is why I wonder if there is some sort of ruling or exception given to the Chairman's Lounge.

[The name is Porter]

Airlineratings.com must disclose material conflicts of interest that could be seen to affect the accuracy, fairness or independence of their reports.

I continually post on his website asking for this disclosure, maybe if y'all did, it would bring it out into the greater media.

[The name is Porter]

A rather small club of "influence" soft corruption Australian style.

Australia would have to be the most corrupt 1st world nation. Even the US has stricter regulations on when an ex-politician can accept private sector jobs. This soft corruption is endemic, nobody seems to give a flying. Well, maybe that's incorrect, there's a lot of whinging but nothing done, no complaints made to corruption commissions.

[Rated De]

Australia would have to be the most corrupt 1st world nation. Even the US has stricter regulations on when an ex-politician can accept private sector jobs. This soft corruption is endemic, nobody seems to give a flying. Well, maybe that's incorrect, there's a lot of whinging but nothing done, no complaints made to corruption commissions.

Australia's "governance" makes third world dictatorships look clean.
Ask anyone with knowledge of the accounting disclosure and regulatory enforcement regime in Australia and they will to a person shake their head.

Wasn't there a banking royal commission?

Yes 100% agree, especially the Minister of a regulator. How on earth can a regulator take hospitality from those they are supposed to oversee?
This is why I wonder if there is some sort of ruling or exception given to the Chairman's Lounge.

Maybe not a ruling as such, rahter highly probable the defence is simply more nuanced; It can't be corrupt if we bribe both sides of the house equally....
Politicians won't say a thing, they (with a few exceptions are all in on it)
If all judges are invited, all regulators etc, then no influence is sought is the PR narrative.

James Shipton (ASIC head) would have opened a few emails and letters sliding his feet under the desk of Medcraft, who skulked away to hide another another rock at an investment bank.
One of them most definitely, signed by Dinosaur and likely pickled Leigh Clifford inviting him inside..

Of course, hiding behind commercial in confidence beckons the question, what commercial activities does the company wish to hide?

[neville_nobody]

Here is a Question & Answer from the Legislative Assembly and Council of WA. The thinking is that Airline Clubs have no value as you cannot purchase them and they do not apply to an agency specifically but to the individual.


Question On Notice No. 2134 asked in the Legislative Council on 14 May 2019 by Hon Martin Aldridge
Question Directed to the: Minister for Regional Development representing the Minister for Commerce
Minister responding: Hon J.R. QuigleyI refer to exclusive, invitation only clubs operated by Virgin Australia (The Club) and Qantas (Chairman's Lounge), and I ask the Minister:(a) please identify for each member of your staff, for each member of your immediate family and for each agency under your direction:(i) the names of those offered membership from either Virgin Australia or Qantas and the date on which such an offer was made;(ii) for each person identified in (i), the date on which an offer was accepted or rejected and the relevant decision by the intended recipient of the membership;(iii) for each person identified in (i), when the membership is expected to expire if accepted; and(iv) the benefits offered with respect to each membership offered and the estimated annual value of those benefits;(b) with respect to Members of Parliament, has the gift received been disclosed in accordance with the Members of Parliament (Financial Interests) Act 1992 for each year in which the gift was accepted;(c) for gifts received by Minister's, has the gift been disclosed to the Chief of Protocol, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, and was such notification provided within the 30 days requirement of the Ministerial Code of Conduct;(d) has the Minister declared any conflict of interest or abstained from any Government decision arising from the gift received from Virgin Australia or Qantas; and(e) for each public service officer identified in (a), please outline what gift disclosure and conflict of interest reporting has occurred with respect to each agency?

Answered on 25 June 2019

As the Member would be aware, each of the airlines metioned offer membership of their respective clubs to State and Federal Government Ministers and in some instances Leaders of the Opposition. As was the process in the previous government, the acceptance of airline lounge memberships by a Minister does not represent a conflict of interest.




Question On Notice No. 2144 asked in the Legislative Council on 14 May 2019 by Hon Martin Aldridge
I refer to Legislative Council question on notice 2144 and the Minister's reference to Legislative Council question on notice 2134, which provides no answer to the information that I seek and I ask, when does the Minister intend to answer the question or satisfy obligations under section 82 of the Financial Management Act 2006?



QuestionI refer to Legislative Council question on notice 2135 and the Minister's reference to Legislative Council question on notice 2134, which provides no answer to the information that I seek and I ask, when does the Minister intend to answer the question or satisfy obligations under section 82 of the Financial Management Act 2006?

Answered on 29 October 2019

Section 82 of the Financial Management Act 2006 expressly concerns the conduct or operation of an agency. The Member’s original question pertains neither to the conduct nor operation of an agency.

For the Member’s benefit, both the Chairman’s Lounge (QANTAS) and The Club (Virgin) are invitation only memberships. They cannot be purchased, and as such there is no value attached to them. They are an agreement between the airlines and individuals.

Furthermore, memberships are not necessarily offered to Ministers, Directors General or other public servants by virtue of their current positions. Individuals, including Ministers, other Members of Parliament and departmental officials, may also have memberships based on their previous occupations or for reasons outside of their official responsibilities.

If the member has a particular question about one of the approximately 140,000 public servants in Western Australia I suggest he asks a more specific question.

[neville_nobody]

I guess GT can argue that if he is a member of the Chairman's Lounge then it has no value and no influence is sought.

[Paragraph377]

NN said “The thinking is that Airline Clubs have no value as you cannot purchase them and they do not apply to an agency specifically but to the individual”.

There are many ‘gifts’ or ‘favours’ or ‘rewards’ in life that can be awarded to an individual and said favour may not have a quantifiable financial value attached to it. However, that does not necessarily mean that it is morally and ethically acceptable. Example; does the Director of Aviation Safety and his Minister, both being given priveleged CL membership, pass the pub test? HARDLY. It’s the same with Politician payrises. So that they are seen as being ‘honorable and above board’, a ‘remuneration tribunal’ undertakes salary reviews and provides the recommendations. So when a Pollie gets a 20% payrise he says ‘it wasn’t me, the tribunal do that’. Ironic how the tribunal is paid its salaries by the Government and the politicians don’t have to go through enterprise bargaining and lose something, nor do they ever get a ****ty 3% or 1x1x1 deal over three years.

There is more than one way to skin a cat and Australia’s elite have it all worked out meticulously.

[Rated De]

There is more than one way to skin a cat and Australia’s elite have it all worked out meticulously.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "having established what Australia's regulatory, judicial and political elite are, it becomes a simple question of price."

Qantas naturally claim commercial in confidence to protect the reputation of the conflicted.

[Arthur D]

Apart from eviscerating the mans character, seemingly for daring to opine on airline safety (how dare he, a non-pilot....), can anyone here actually prove he is a member of the Chairmans Lounge?

Would hate to think people may going off half - cocked.

[Sunfish]

The membership has no price because it is priceless.

[MickG0105]

So when a Pollie gets a 20% payrise he says ‘it wasn’t me, the tribunal do that’.
So when in the 47 year history of Remuneration Tribunal decisions have they ever awarded a 20% pay rise?


... the politicians don’t have to go through enterprise bargaining and lose something, nor do they ever get a ****ty 3% or 1x1x1 deal over three years.

A ****ty 3%?! For the past three years politicians' pay rises have been an even ****tier 2%! And they face a rather crucial stay-or-go performance review every three or six years called 'elections'.
​​​​​​​

[The name is Porter]

Apart from eviscerating the mans character

The bloke is a ********. By opening his mouth he eviscerates his own character. Listen to his commentary on ANY subject and you'll quickly workout he hasn't got a clue.

[Buster Hyman]

I don't know how this twit, GT.... GT has zero actual technical qualifications or licenses.

My company's legal department is of the opinion that ...
I'd be curious to hear your legal departments opinion on this thread to be honest... :}

[BalusKaptan]

This list is b****cks! Air New Zealand is listed as not losing an aircraft. 5 come to mind immediately, Kaimi, Ruapehu, Auckland/Managere x2 and Antarctica.

[Chris2303]

This list is b****cks! Air New Zealand is listed as not losing an aircraft. 5 come to mind immediately, Kaimi, Ruapehu, Auckland/Managere x2 and Antarctica.

Do you mean Kaimai and Auckland/Mangere perhaps?

[BalusKaptan]

Yes, autocorrect just doesn't cut the ice with some of the Kiwi names.

[Chronic Snoozer]

So when in the 47 year history of Remuneration Tribunal decisions have they ever awarded a 20% pay rise?

In 2012. From APH.gov.auPercentage increases in the base salary from 1996Since 1996, the base salary has increased by the following (in actual dollars):

7 March 1996—1.6 per cent
17 October 1996—1.2 per cent
7 December 1999—4.45 per cent, the first stage of a 9.95 per cent two-stage increase
1 July 2000—5.5 per cent, the second stage of the 9.95 per cent increase
1 July 2000—2.2 per cent by virtue of an adjustment to the PEO Classification Structure
1 July 2001—3.9 per cent
1 July 2002—3.35 per cent
1 July 2003—4 per cent
1 July 2004—3.9 per cent
1 July 2005—4.1 per cent and
1 July 2006—7.01 per cent
1 July 2007—6.8 per cent
1 October 2009—3.1 per cent
1 August 2010—3.8 per cent
1 July 2011—3.6 per cent
15 March 2012—31.3 per cent
1 July 2012—3.0 per cent
1 July 2013—2.4 per cent
1 July 2014—0 per cent
1 January 2016—2.0 per cent
1 July 2017—2.0 per cent
1 July 2018—2.0 per cent

[plainmaker]

This list is b****cks! Air New Zealand is listed as not losing an aircraft. 5 come to mind immediately, Kaimi, Ruapehu, Auckland/Managere x2 and Antarctica.

If I recall, both Kaimai and Ruapehu were NAC. At least one Auckland one was TEAL (L-188). Apply the same logic to QF - well Tatars lost the odd one as well. And let us not forget the BKK golf course excursion. I tend to take these 'safest airline' statements as BS. It effectively rates a new start airline as optimal, with a 'there but for the grace of god' moment that can happen to any of us. VA should be top of that list also.

Takes another grain of salt.

[Paragraph377]

MickGo105, the figure of 20% may be an embellishment, but after 40 years in operations, executive management and Government, I know what they get. And even if it is 2%, when that is tacked onto a salary of between $250k and $500k, that’s a lot. They receive remuneration from their own business interests and seats that they hold on the boards of private companies also. In recent years they have received payrises, tax cuts, and a raise in their expense allowances. Since 2009 parliamentary salaries have been increasing at an average of 5 percent per year, almost twice as fast as working people’s wages, which have grown at 2.8 per cent by WPI over the same period. Last year politicians received another 2 percent pay rise on the same day that 700,000 low-paid workers had their penalty rates cut for the third year.

Mick, you are entitled to defend your elected mates, but they are still grubs.

[MickG0105]

In 2012. From APH.gov.auPercentage increases in the base salary from 1996Since 1996, the base salary has increased by the following (in actual dollars):

7 March 1996—1.6 per cent
17 October 1996—1.2 per cent
7 December 1999—4.45 per cent, the first stage of a 9.95 per cent two-stage increase
1 July 2000—5.5 per cent, the second stage of the 9.95 per cent increase
1 July 2000—2.2 per cent by virtue of an adjustment to the PEO Classification Structure
1 July 2001—3.9 per cent
1 July 2002—3.35 per cent
1 July 2003—4 per cent
1 July 2004—3.9 per cent
1 July 2005—4.1 per cent and
1 July 2006—7.01 per cent
1 July 2007—6.8 per cent
1 October 2009—3.1 per cent
1 August 2010—3.8 per cent
1 July 2011—3.6 per cent
15 March 2012—31.3 per cent
1 July 2012—3.0 per cent
1 July 2013—2.4 per cent
1 July 2014—0 per cent
1 January 2016—2.0 per cent
1 July 2017—2.0 per cent
1 July 2018—2.0 per cent


Well spotted. I'm assuming you read the explanation for that one-off large increase. During the 1980s the MPs’ base salary failed to keep up with inflation resulting in a decline in value in real terms. This was in contrast to the average which kept ahead of inflation and grew, in real terms, at an annual average rate of 0.3 per cent.

As a result the base salary, which had been almost three times the average wage in 1975, was only twice the average wage in 1991. During the 1990s MPs were given increases to their base salary which allowed some catch up with average wages. However, despite this by 2011 the base salary was still only 2.2 times the average wage.

In March 2012 MPs received an increase to their base salary of 31.3 per cent.

[MickG0105]

And even if it is 2%, when that is tacked onto a salary of between $250k and $500k, that’s a lot.
The base salary for Senators and Members of the House of Representatives is currently $211,250 per annum.

And if 2% being tacked on to a politician's salary of $207,100 (base as at 1 July 2018) is 'a lot' then surely 3% being tacked on to $137,356 (Jetstar wide-body Level 2 FO as at 1 July 2018) is also 'a lot', isn't it?

Since 2009 parliamentary salaries have been increasing at an average of 5 percent per year, almost twice as fast as working people’s wages, which have grown at 2.8 per cent by WPI over the same period.
Yes, but that is only because of the one off-2012 wages correction for politicians. Over the past 5 years parliamentary salaries have increased by an average 1.6 per cent per year compared to about 2.3 per cent for everyone else.

Mick, you are entitled to defend your elected mates, but they are still grubs.
Elected mates?!! I'm not defending politicians or their wages or their wage increases, I'm simply looking to provide some facts.

[The name is Porter]

In 2012. From APH.gov.auPercentage increases in the base salary from 1996Since 1996, the base salary has increased by the following (in actual dollars):

7 March 1996—1.6 per cent
17 October 1996—1.2 per cent
7 December 1999—4.45 per cent, the first stage of a 9.95 per cent two-stage increase
1 July 2000—5.5 per cent, the second stage of the 9.95 per cent increase
1 July 2000—2.2 per cent by virtue of an adjustment to the PEO Classification Structure
1 July 2001—3.9 per cent
1 July 2002—3.35 per cent
1 July 2003—4 per cent
1 July 2004—3.9 per cent
1 July 2005—4.1 per cent and
1 July 2006—7.01 per cent
1 July 2007—6.8 per cent
1 October 2009—3.1 per cent
1 August 2010—3.8 per cent
1 July 2011—3.6 per cent
15 March 2012—31.3 per cent
1 July 2012—3.0 per cent
1 July 2013—2.4 per cent
1 July 2014—0 per cent
1 January 2016—2.0 per cent
1 July 2017—2.0 per cent
1 July 2018—2.0 per cent


MickG0105, Boooooommm!!

[The name is Porter]

Yes, but that is only because of the one off-2012 wages correction for politicians. Over the past 5 years parliamentary salaries have increased by an average 1.6 per cent per year compared to about 2.3 per cent for everyone else.

And this absolutely pathetic attempt at a backtrack/justification.

Take the post down, you've made an arseclown of yourself.

Dude, a 2012 payrise that your poor measly 1.6% has compounded on.

[Rated De]

In 2012. From APH.gov.auPercentage increases in the base salary from 1996Since 1996, the base salary has increased by the following (in actual dollars):

7 March 1996—1.6 per cent
17 October 1996—1.2 per cent
7 December 1999—4.45 per cent, the first stage of a 9.95 per cent two-stage increase
1 July 2000—5.5 per cent, the second stage of the 9.95 per cent increase
1 July 2000—2.2 per cent by virtue of an adjustment to the PEO Classification Structure
1 July 2001—3.9 per cent
1 July 2002—3.35 per cent
1 July 2003—4 per cent
1 July 2004—3.9 per cent
1 July 2005—4.1 per cent and
1 July 2006—7.01 per cent
1 July 2007—6.8 per cent
1 October 2009—3.1 per cent
1 August 2010—3.8 per cent
1 July 2011—3.6 per cent
15 March 2012—31.3 per cent
1 July 2012—3.0 per cent
1 July 2013—2.4 per cent
1 July 2014—0 per cent
1 January 2016—2.0 per cent
1 July 2017—2.0 per cent
1 July 2018—2.0 per cent




Ahh... published figures.

With increased focus on executive remuneration the C suite moved away from "headline STIP" to LTIP...
A whole bunch of options, dirt cheap awarded for "performance" exercised at an amazingly convenient time.

If politicians in Australia receive no further "fringe and unreported benefits" it would be a world first.

Start with the parliamentary dining rooms, as their most ample guts show the prevalance of..

The actual cost for the these grubs is far more than simple "salary"

Ask Andrew Robb just how lucrative going from Trade Minister with a really well timed exit, securing both a life time pension and a $1,000,000 a year salary working for a company that his amazingly well timed FTA benefited.

[Rated De]

Back to the "Chairman's lounge"

Perhaps in the interest of transparency, ASIC could look into this pecuniary yet non-disclosed benefit.
Given Fort Fumble say commercial in confidence, yet claim nothing untoward transpires, then a transparent disclosure of the membership list is in the public interest.

Perhaps an email to young James Shipton, asking him of his membership status and whether or not ASIC has issues with conflict..

[MickG0105]

And this absolutely pathetic attempt at a backtrack/justification.

Take the post down, you've made an arseclown of yourself.

Dude, a 2012 payrise that your poor measly 1.6% has compounded on.

Simply stating facts, old son.

The one-off correction in 2012 is fully explained on the aph.gov.au webpage that Chronic Snooze quoted from.

During the 1980s the MPs’ base salary failed to keep up with inflation resulting in a decline in value in real terms. This was in contrast to the average which kept ahead of inflation and grew, in real terms, at an annual average rate of 0.3 per cent.As a result the base salary, which had been almost three times the average wage in 1975, was only twice the average wage in 1991. During the 1990s MPs were given increases to their base salary which allowed some catch up with average wages. However, despite this by 2011 the base salary was still only 2.2 times the average wage.

In March 2012 MPs received an increase to their base salary of 31.3 per cent. This resulted in a significant increase in the value of the salary relative to average wages. At 2.8 times the average annual wage it was at its highest level in 37 years.

The freeze on MPs’ pay for a year (beginning 1 July 2014) reduced the gap with average weekly earnings. There was no increase in MPs’ base salary in 2015. Since then, the ratio has fluctuated between 2.7 and 2.8.


In short, Australian politician's salaries have traditionally been set at around 2.7-2.8 times average wages. That relativity was eroded down through the 80s and 90s. In 2011 the Remuneration Tribunal was tasked to determine the appropriate parliamentary base salary. In March 2012 the Tribunal issued a Determination setting the base salary of $185,000 for MPs. That was the one-off 31% increase.

Who would have thought that so many foreigners would be so deeply concerned with Australian politicians and their remuneration?!

By way of comparison, the base salary for US Federal politicians is currently 3.7 times the US average wage. Perhaps you could direct your opprobrium more locally?

[Chronic Snoozer]

Simply stating facts, old son.

The one-off correction in 2012 is fully explained on the aph.gov.au webpage that Chronic Snooze quoted from.



In short, Australian politician's salaries have traditionally been set at around 2.7-2.8 times average wages. That relativity was eroded down through the 80s and 90s. In 2011 the Remuneration Tribunal was tasked to determine the appropriate parliamentary base salary. In March 2012 the Tribunal issued a Determination setting the base salary of $185,000 for MPs. That was the one-off 31% increase.

Who would have thought that so many foreigners would be so deeply concerned with Australian politicians and their remuneration?!

By way of comparison, the base salary for US Federal politicians is currently 3.7 times the US average wage. Perhaps you could direct your opprobrium more locally?

The point was not to argue the merits of the payrise decision, it was in direct response to your presumably rhetorical question of So when in the 47 year history of Remuneration Tribunal decisions have they ever awarded a 20% pay rise?

The answer is actually never. However they did decide to bump pay by 31% this one time. How on Earth do you know it's a one off? Who knows what stunts the three tribunal members will pull off in the future? Have I mentioned that MPs get 15.4% superannuation too?

Overview of the Parliamentary Superannuation Act 2004 (https://www.finance.gov.au/government/superannuation/parliamentary-superannuation/overview-parliamentary-superannuation-act-2004)
Overview

The Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme (PCSS) was closed to new members from 9 October 2004 and superannuation accumulation arrangements were established for Parliamentarians joining Parliament on or after that date.
The accumulation arrangements were established under the Parliamentary Superannuation Act 2004 (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A01315) (2004 Act) and involve a Government contribution of 15.4% which is calculated on total parliamentary salaries. The Government contribution is payable into a superannuation fund chosen by the Parliamentarian.


In short, Australian politician's salaries have traditionally been set at around 2.7-2.8 times average wages. That relativity was eroded down through the 80s and 90s. In 2011 the Remuneration Tribunal was tasked to determine the appropriate parliamentary base salary.

How quaint. Pollies don't have to negotiate an EBA. And ironic because the higher average wages go, the greater the increase to politicians base salary. Win-Win! Too bad politicians don't do PIA, the country might actually be run better.

I don't know what this has to do with anything, just simply stating some facts.

[The name is Porter]

Dood, c'mon, admit it, outclassed on the argument. You asked a question you didn't know the answer to, it was answered to your stunned surprise. You're now changing the argument.

Boooommmm!

[Paragraph377]

Dood, c'mon, admit it, outclassed on the argument. You asked a question you didn't know the answer to, it was answered to your stunned surprise. You're now changing the argument.
Boooommmm!

Porter, I agree with you. The turkey has been roasted. I reckon just ignore the muppet. He isn’t even a challenge as his so-called argument is, well, is ****e.

I reckon back on topic is a must. Back to GT...

[The name is Porter]

I reckon back on topic is a must. Back to GT...

Yep, back to how much of a ******** GT is!

[MelbourneFlyer]

I am sure it is no accident that Air New Zealand always wins the site's "World's Best Airline" award and that this NZ advertises on the site and that most of GT's international flying to the US and London as indicated by his Facebook page is done on NZ.

[Rated De]

I am sure it is no accident that Air New Zealand always wins the site's "World's Best Airline" award and that this NZ advertises on the site and that most of GT's international flying to the US and London as indicated by his Facebook page is done on NZ.

As noted Chemist Dave Collum posits;

I am a "conspiracy theorist". I believe men and women of wealth and power conspire. If you don't think so, then you are what is called "an idiot". If you believe stuff but fear the label, you are what is called "a coward".