Arguments for socialism: Pigs at the trough
By Jonathan Strauss
A recent middle of the night attempt by NSW parliamentarians from all parties to increase their own superannuation entitlements by an average of 30% sparked a week of front-page headlines in the Sydney Morning Herald from January 10.
Without even a hint of public discussion, and only nine minutes discussion in the upper house on the last sitting day in December, the politicians stitched up a deal to slip through both houses an "amendment" to increase their superannuation payments by up to $35,000 a year and $900,000 over their lifetimes. The changes would have cost the public at least $30 million over the next 10 years.
Knowing full well that capitalist politicians, and consequently the whole system of parliament, have a growing public credibility problem, and realising that the NSW politicians' grab for more bucks would further damage that credibility, the Herald demanded that "heads roll".
Under the pressure of the big business media and public outrage at their blatant greed, the pollies backed off almost as rapidly as they had pushed the pay rise through.
While this was a fairly minor and short-lived incident in Australian political life, it did offer a clear glimpse into why the whole system of capitalist parliamentary democracy should be abolished.
Politicians are elected ostensibly to "represent" us, the citizens of the country. Indeed, this idea of "representation" is at the very heart of parliamentary politics in all capitalist societies.
But how can MPs possibly represent the majority of people — working people, whether employed, unemployed, retired or, as students, future workers — when politicians' income, lifestyle, aspirations and expectations for the future are so radically different from those of the majority?
NSW parliamentary superannuation — a pension for life from the moment the MP retires — starts at $40,000 per year and rises to about $80,000. That's slightly more than the average wage in Australia!
Parliamentarian's salaries and allowances are much higher again, and when they retire from parliament they can add to their income with positions on government committees or company boards, consultancies and so on.
Those who attempt to justify parliamentarians' high salaries often argue that because MPs are managing the state they should be paid at the same high level as other managers. Thus, NSW independent Richard Jones, who was the front person for the superannuation amendment, justified the increase by saying: "There are good people in the parliament, but there are others outside who would do a good job in politics but wouldn't think of running because they would be doing themselves out of a lot of money."
No working person would be "doing themselves out of money". Only those who are already in positions of power in Australian capitalism would confront a pay cut by becoming an MP.
The truth is that parliamentarians are paid, not to represent the majority, but to manage the capitalist system. Their high salaries ensure that, in general, they see their interests as being tied up with maintaining that system.
Working-class people, for whom capitalism means inadequate wages, unsafe jobs, unemployment, poverty, sexism, racism and the destruction of the environment, can't possibly be "represented" by people whose interests lie in preserving such a system.
True representatives of the majority would be workers themselves who share the same concerns, interests and prospects.
As former NSW independent MP Ted Mack observed about this latest exposé of how politicians and corruption go together: if you give more peanuts to a house full of monkeys, you just get bigger monkeys!
Reducing politicians' wages and pensions to the average received by skilled workers would be one step towards ensuring better parliamentary representation.
Another would be to make politicians accountable to and recallable at any time by those who elected them.
But can you image a middle of the night vote by MPs to cut their own salaries by more than 50%? Or a vote to sack themselves every time they broke another "core" or "non-core" promise?
No. Parliaments legislate on behalf of a minority, the capitalist class, and their incumbents, the politicians, are well paid for the service.
Until this so-called representative democracy is abolished and replaced by a form of democracy in which the majority of people are active participants in making the major decisions affecting their lives, we can expect to see many more middle of the night attempts to make working people pay for the maintenance of a system which is not their own.
[Jonathan Strauss is a national committee member of the Democratic Socialist Party.]