Jim SpearsBest Minds Best Perks
July 27th 2008 16:27
Statistics can be misleading. Cristiano Ronaldo scored 31 league goals but he's a wanker. Likewise last year’s 6.7% pay rises for politicians might be old but fretting is forbidden etcbecause they have protection from the "baddies" inflation, petrol etc please see ACA for our woes. On the 14th of June this year the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal approved rises of between 4.2 and 14 per cent to allowances. Statistical grand truths are too abstract; consider an example of an existing perk/allowance for a real taste of the fringe benefit, the pork in the barrel.
Travel allowances are sweeeet maaaaaate especially when travel is demonstrably in the interest of the Commonwealth.
Good ol’ reliable Clause 1.8 of the
Remnuration Tribunal's Determination on Travel, the People’s Clause, protects the humble tax-payer, or atom; office holders must find “…the most cost-effective outcome (the ‘best deal’ for the taxpayer)” I like the layman’s explanation so politicians can’t try and drag social or opportunity costs into the mix i.e. “Well the Australian people value opportunity costs more than financial costs and they would hate to see a business class seat go unused. I bumped myself for the Australian people.”
The people’s values, the Australian spirit is acknowledged in the Determination (LINK). A flight longer than five hours earns the office holder a “free” upgrade to business class. Like Arthur’s sword the upgrade confers the appearance of power and privilege but on a “long” flight, nearly every flight out of or across Australia, the free upgrade is given to sooth those widdle minds at whim.
The whole concept of the upgrades is devalued throughout the Determination. An office holder can upgrade if a traveling partner enjoys better surrounds. You can hear it now “I was traveling with that bastard Jones and there is no way I’m letting him think he’s better than me.” There are conditions; the office holder must prove the upgrade to be “demonstrably in the interest of the Commonwealth” but they’re just words really.
Given the Commonwealth’s disinterest in frequent flyer points one can only presume it’s naivety, or stupidity, makes the “con” easier, kinda like State Rail. Clause 2.4’s advice on the matter is “[t]hey should not be used for private purposes.” Attracting the interest of the Commonwealth, that old dragon is locked away somewhere, is difficult, without Ray Hadley changing it is harder still. Still we could just get rid of the Commonwealth or get a pool system where FFPs can be used for spouses or, even, gift purchases for public servants and atoms.
Distribution must start with Public Servants to ease their pending sorrows. With State budget pay rises locked to 2.5% (making the real target around 3%?) Toasters and watches might be the lubricant they need. Then we should probably re-jig the definitions the independent tribunal uses to determine wage increases to reflect the vast prestige discrepancy between state and federal politics.
This has been demonstrably in the interest of the Commonwealth but what isn't?
Travel allowances are sweeeet maaaaaate especially when travel is demonstrably in the interest of the Commonwealth.
Good ol’ reliable Clause 1.8 of the
Remnuration Tribunal's Determination on Travel, the People’s Clause, protects the humble tax-payer, or atom; office holders must find “…the most cost-effective outcome (the ‘best deal’ for the taxpayer)” I like the layman’s explanation so politicians can’t try and drag social or opportunity costs into the mix i.e. “Well the Australian people value opportunity costs more than financial costs and they would hate to see a business class seat go unused. I bumped myself for the Australian people.”
The people’s values, the Australian spirit is acknowledged in the Determination (LINK). A flight longer than five hours earns the office holder a “free” upgrade to business class. Like Arthur’s sword the upgrade confers the appearance of power and privilege but on a “long” flight, nearly every flight out of or across Australia, the free upgrade is given to sooth those widdle minds at whim.
Munitions, Weapons of War. Villainy operates at the highest level.
Given the Commonwealth’s disinterest in frequent flyer points one can only presume it’s naivety, or stupidity, makes the “con” easier, kinda like State Rail. Clause 2.4’s advice on the matter is “[t]hey should not be used for private purposes.” Attracting the interest of the Commonwealth, that old dragon is locked away somewhere, is difficult, without Ray Hadley changing it is harder still. Still we could just get rid of the Commonwealth or get a pool system where FFPs can be used for spouses or, even, gift purchases for public servants and atoms.
Distribution must start with Public Servants to ease their pending sorrows. With State budget pay rises locked to 2.5% (making the real target around 3%?) Toasters and watches might be the lubricant they need. Then we should probably re-jig the definitions the independent tribunal uses to determine wage increases to reflect the vast prestige discrepancy between state and federal politics.
This has been demonstrably in the interest of the Commonwealth but what isn't?
| 37 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
