A review by the General Manager of Wollongong council suggests that the stipend for the Lord Mayor should be increased from $ 74,530 per year - to $ 143,000, the same rate as a member of state parliament. If this is approved, it would naturally follow that the stipend of other councillors would be under pressure for a similar review.
It will concern some people that if pay levels rise to duplicate those of state parliament, we will be introducing a career bureaucracy at local government level. If holding a post as a member of state parliament is a sought after career sinecure then getting elected to council will become a career move along similar political lines.
There are many facets to this question. Back in the dim, dark ages the only people putting up their hand to stand for council were men who owned or managed the city's commercial structure. Becoming the Lord Mayor was a great honour and it conferred elevated social standing on that bearer of office. It was expected that councillors would make their time available without compensation, supported by the income from their permanent position in city commerce. Women council members were rare.
Today, those elected to council come from all walks of life and both genders. It is not mandatory for those seeking office to have a secure personal income, and yet they are taking up a management position on a business enterprise that has a multi-million dollar turnover. They rank alongside directors of huge national corporations.
Initially, a small stipend for the mayor and individual councillors was not seen as " pay " . but reimbursement for out of pocket expenses. Representing council required them to attend functions and they were constantly asked to put their hand in their pocket. The usual " bracket creep " occurred. Transport costs morphed into the provision of cars and soon councillors were equipped with council paid mobile phones and tablets. The bigger the council - the greater the degree of reimbursement.
The question awaiting answer is do we want those representing us on council to become our employees ?
If we agree that "councillor" should be a salaried position, we open an interesting can of worms. Under the prevailing laws, we are obliged to pay superannuation entitlements to that person and it raises the legal definition of other entitlements.
For instance, when the voters decide to discontinue the services of a counsellor by voting him or her out of office, surely this takes the form of a " termination ". Precisely the same conditions apply to ending the mayor's term of office. It could be that this technicality will open the doors for the various issues such as holiday pay, long service leave and other termination payments owing to an employee.
On the other hand, if we agree that acting as the board of directors overseeing the expenditure of millions of ratepayers dollars comes into the category of big business, we would expect those jobs to offer sufficient salary to attract the best and brightest of the business world.
Exactly the same criteria applies to the membership of both Federal and State parliament, but there are no rules in place demanding a level of fitness for the job or minimum skill level for those seeking our vote. There is nothing to guarantee that the educational level or business experience of those seeking the job will be any higher than the people we elect to parliament.
It seems that there is inevitably a sector of the population unhappy with the decisions made by the various councils, just as this same rejection applies to the decisions of parliaments. It seems to be a fact of life that whoever we elect to public office will make decisions that are not the choice of many of the people.
The big question is - will we get any better standards if we pay a salary for their decisions ?
No comments:
Post a Comment