PM’s pay

Written By: - Date published: 10:00 am, April 23rd, 2009 - 28 comments
Categories: workers' rights - Tags:

Interesting question over at Big News:

In 1998, just 10 years ago,the Prime Minister was paid $185,000. The speaker was paid $126,000. A Chairperson of a Select Committee got $86,500.

John Key gets more than all three combined in 2008. That’s not including his allowances. Is your position paid more than double it was 10 years ago?

28 comments on “PM’s pay ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. cocamc 1
    23 April 2009 at 10:03 am

    That’s not a fault of the PM but the higher salaries commission. And he donates his salary anyway to charity. Whats the point of this article?

    • Pascal's bookie 1.1
      23 April 2009 at 11:15 am

      Not that it’s relevant, but do you have a cite for Key donating his entire salary?

      This post, I guess, like any other piece of writing, is what you make of it. You seem to make a weird attack on Key out of it.

      For me it raises questions about the HSC, what formula are they using, what does this tell us about what has been happening around income distribution, etc. Key hardly figures. Why would he?

    • BLiP 1.2
      23 April 2009 at 11:29 am

      Speaking of MP’s donating their salary, do you have any reference for “Sleepy” Sam Lotu Iinga donating his salary given his promise to do so because he is double-dipping with his Auckland City Council salary?

  2. Ron Shaw 2
    23 April 2009 at 10:17 am

    Something happened in the last 10 years. What was it?

    Oh, that’s right we had a Labour government, the leader of which was very happy to accept a pay packet that should have made a true socialist blush and was happy that her pay had doubled since she came to power even though ordinary people’s pay had barely kept pace with inflation.

  3. Peter Johns - bigoted troll in jerkoff mode 3
    23 April 2009 at 10:19 am

    The point of this article is to say we have a greedy PM. He gets paid what he does as he was elected to the role and that is what the salary/perks are. The HSC I am sure would of had some input from HC over the years as she liked to influence things as PM.

    Remember Tane, Key’s salary is a drop in the ocean to what he has earned before, so the point of this post is what…………… Maybe with a smaller amount of Union dues coming in you should be taking a pay decrease Tane.

    I would love to know what Clark is getting paid at the UN, she claims she does not know, yeah right, when do you take a post without negociating remuneration etc. I bet the living away from home allowance is real high as well, although she will have the homely comfort with H2 around.

    I am happy for the tax cuts to go in 2010 & beyond if need be, just as long as there are cuts to un productive peoples benefits.

    • Jasper 3.1
      23 April 2009 at 10:31 am

      Pay is between 145 – 160 USD.
      Using .50 cross rate, it’s 320K NZ. Hardly a boost.

      The listener had a good article about HC at UN. 5 billion budget is barely 80% of NZs health budget.
      Kind of puts it in perspective.

      Tax Cuts – no, not unless they apply to those under 40K. I had to do a reality check last week when my savings account went above 1k in barely a month just from not spending cos I don’t need to. That 1K would have been spent in under 5 minutes by those earning under 40K.

  4. Jasper 4
    23 April 2009 at 10:27 am

    I’ve never been able to see the point in articles like this.
    Helen was earning her 300K, but CEOs of SOEs were earning upwards of 500K.
    Hell, Rob Fyfe gets 3mil a year.

    So… whats the point of this article again?

    If it’s to ask why the PMs salary has doubled in ten years… then fine. Just stop name dropping Key in it all.
    It’s whats turning me off the left at the moment. It’s all JK this, JK that. National did it too with HC this, HC that.
    Questions like this (whether warranted or not) do nothing constructive.

    What is constructive is Nationals gerrymandering around the defence force option for 18 year olds..
    I’d rather see it go a step further towards an end goal of all 17/18 year olds who leave school and are not going into work/training go into their choice of the three armed forces for a minimum 12 months period.
    If they’re under 30, and are going onto a benefit for the first time, they go into the armed forces for a 12 month period.

    The benefits are obvious: Skills training, boost our defence forces (people will be on standby, and people may like the forces and elect to stay after 12 months) less cost to the tax payer, less staff needed at MSD – perhaps move them to MoD.
    More literacy, education and self worth and recognition while in the armed forces.
    Unless you have a severe physical disability (deaf, blind, paraplegic, one legged etc) there’s no reason not to go through with it. People who claim “mental disability” should be examined thoroughly as it’s too easy to bark like a dog and claim you’re mentally ill.

    Hmm… am I turning right?

    • lprent 4.1
      23 April 2009 at 10:41 am

      So whats the point of this article again?

      1. This is a valid question. That is a rate that is significantly above any cost of living increases or growth in wage rates. You’d have to ask what the rationale is to justify the expenditure by taxpayers.
      2. BigNews isn’t exactly left.
      3. Quite simply the right, especially the wingnuts, moved the focus of political debate to personal PR slogans eg Helengrad, Klark, etc. They need a lesson in “what goes around, comes around”

    • DeeDub 4.2
      23 April 2009 at 10:53 am

      I find people who put the phrase metal disabilty in quotation marks are usually the same kind of people as those bastard generals who sat 30 miles behind the trenches and ordered shell shock cases shot in WW1.

      Are you turning right? Yes. Scarily.

      • Jasper 4.2.1
        23 April 2009 at 11:58 am

        In this example Dee I used mental disability in quotes as I was referring to Victoria Stevens. Woof Woof.

  5. Brett Dale 5
    23 April 2009 at 10:30 am

    How is that John key’s fault?

    Oh that’s right, hes a rich white man.

  6. lprent 6
    23 April 2009 at 10:47 am

    I see that we have the wingnuts out in force… I guess that dave over a Big News touched a nerve

  7. Graeme 7
    23 April 2009 at 11:00 am

    When were the major changes to MPs allowances and their super scheme?

    These used to add significantly to the baseline figure. At one point it was decided to get rid of these massive perks, and the salary was markedly increased that year. The superannuation of MPs who first entered Parliament after that time is now based on how much they put it (matched 2 or 3 to 1, I think) not automatically massive and for life after three complete terms.

    • Jasper 7.1
      23 April 2009 at 11:58 am

      2002 Graeme. PMs pay went from 205K to 300K and this was due to the inclusion of a lot of previous extra perks.

  8. Daniel 8
    23 April 2009 at 11:07 am

    “3. Quite simply the right, especially the wingnuts, moved the focus of political debate to personal PR slogans eg Helengrad, Klark, etc. They need a lesson in “what goes around, comes around'”

    Because if we know anything, it’s that two wrongs make a right. Way to prove a point by sinking to their level. Didn’t it occur to you that them sounding like idiots then might give some indication to how you would sound now?

    • Rex Widerstrom 8.1
      23 April 2009 at 1:35 pm

      What Daniel said.

    • lprent 8.2
      23 April 2009 at 2:12 pm

      It is my opinion. If you read the about you’ll find that is how the site is operated. While there are people who probably disagree with my opinion or tactics – then they can operate in whatever way they want. If people don’t violate the policy (essentially don’t act like a troll), then they can say what they like.

      • Daniel 8.2.1
        23 April 2009 at 2:25 pm

        Didn’t dispute your right to say it at all. My point still stands however.

        • BLiP 8.2.1.1
          23 April 2009 at 4:23 pm

          This time last year I would have agreed with you. However, working in an office stuffed full of National voters and listening to how the wingnut malevolence began to shape their views and their stated reasons for voting National, its more a matter of fighting fire with fire rather than two wrongs making a right.

          I must say, the right can dish it out but they don’t like it up ’em.

  9. jarbury 9
    23 April 2009 at 11:48 am

    When you consider their responsibilities, top ministers and the PM are grossly underpaid.

    And yeah, what Graeme says too.

  10. Indiana 10
    23 April 2009 at 12:07 pm

    Has a National Secretary role in a Union been fixed to what it was 10 years ago?

  11. Tane 11
    23 April 2009 at 12:24 pm

    Just to clarify, this post was not intended to attack John Key personally. Hell, I’m quoting a right-wing blog. I just found it interesting that PM’s pay has outstripped the average worker’s by so much over the last decade. I’m also aware the PM does not set his or her own pay.

    Right, as you were.

  12. Ianmac 12
    23 April 2009 at 2:36 pm

    Actually I don’t mind what the MP’s are paid. It is a tough job and somebody has to do it. 🙂 In some other countries where MP pay is minimal, the likelyhood of being open to bribery is very high. (But I don’t know where Phillip Field fits in here.)