All the better to lobby with

From today’s Oz, it seems

A bipartisan committee (of the Tasmanian Parliament) has unanimously recommended state parliament grow from 25 to 35 members.

For a population of roughly 500,000 people, they need an extra 10 representatives.  From 1 member for every 20,000 people to 1 member for every 15,000.

But why stop at 35 members.  Why not 250,000 members?  1 member for every 2 people; or 1 member to every non member.

But here’s the special nugget:

The Labor opposition is in favour of the idea — just not the $7m price tag to pay the extra MPs each year.

10 extra members.  $7m.  That’s $700,000 per member.  Presumably that’s salary, international travel, wardrobe allowance, meal allowance, newspaper and pay tv allowance, book allowance, car allowance, superannuation.  Presumably staff and office is on top.

Who needs Centrelink when you have the tax payers of NSW and Victoria to stump up.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to All the better to lobby with

  1. stackja

    Tasmanian voters agree? Mainland voters have veto power?

  2. Pyrmonter

    Kevin Bonham has some good analysis of this – the arguments go back years. If they increased the size, they might well adjust the payscales. Not sure it’s wise having a parliament in which there is, in effect, no backbench.

    http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2013/03/tasmanian-lower-house-25-or-35-seats.html

  3. Archivist

    Not sure it’s wise having a parliament in which there is, in effect, no backbench.

    I have trouble seeing a downside.
    I’m not a believer in the parliamentary “talent pool”.
    In a small parliament, politicians have to work harder to prove their worth: all of them. Not just the minority who wrangle their way into a ministry. Dead wood gets identified faster, and the parties can’t afford to carry them.

  4. a happy little debunker

    The disadvantage in the current numbers (from 35 to 25 in 1998) is that the additional work load is taken by high priced consultants – that are never held accountable for their decision making.

    The advantage – is that the Greens can never win more than 1 or 2 seats.

  5. Frank

    Dead wood gets identified faster, and the parties can’t afford to carry them.

    You haven’t seen the Tasmanian parliament have you.

  6. Archivist

    You haven’t seen the Tasmanian parliament have you.

    Just wait until there’s more of them. These will seem like the glory days.

  7. Slim Cognito

    The advantage – is that the Greens can never win more than 1 or 2 seats.

    That’s why the media reports were accompanied by pictures of greens smiling about the proposal.

    Dead wood gets identified faster, and the parties can’t afford to carry them.

    You haven’t seen the Tasmanian parliament have you.

    They are all dead wood.

  8. This may reflect that Tasmania has experienced employment growth. Don’t just count the members and support staff, but hangers on, consultants etc.

  9. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    The ACT parliament (if it could be dignified with such a term) recently increased the number of its members from 15 to 25. Same logic behind the decision, same entirely predictable outcome. More parasites, worse government, more ridiculous policies and bigger deficits.

  10. Squirrel

    In the interests of reducing carbon emissions, we need a cap (but not necessarily trade) scheme for politicians.

  11. Digby Corker

    NSW and Victorian taxpayers? Try again with West Australian taxpayers. Not only do we pay for Tasmania, we also pick up the tab for SA and the NT.

  12. a reader

    Tasmania would do better by getting ride of the bloody Hare-CLarke system

  13. 2dogs

    Is it two more electorates, or 7 per electorate?

  14. Eyrie

    Just divide current cost amongst the new number of members and reduce the salaries accordingly. Simples!

Comments are closed.