Performance-linked ministerial salaries

What do you do in the political arena if your ministers are performing badly? The first thing that comes to mind is not to ask Lawrence Gonzi for an opinion. The accepted response will be: Give them the marching orders and let them cool their heels on the back benches.

There is another way to go about it. According to the NSW Liberals, in opposition for the last 10 years, they will deal with the under-performing ministers in a very business-like way.

They will have their pay docked under new laws to be introduced if they win government in March 2007.

The ministers will only get their full salary if they meet their targets. Ministers who perform poorly will receive a lower salary than those who perform well. One would have thought that if you perform badly you will get a kick on the backside, but this is politics were everything is possible!

The idea of linking salary to performance is not a novelty. In the real world, executives are held accountable by a jargon-riddled system known as key performance indicator (KPI) but in the political jungle, poor performance is swept aside if you are a popularly-elected parliamentarian.

Even if you make no meaningful contribution and you neglect your electorate you are assured of five years of generous salary, special allowance and the many perks that come with being a recognised minister.

The NSW Liberals' pledge could be seen as an election gimmick or as another desperate attempt to get elected. Putting all this aside, the initiative has got merits. It sounds good as well. Withholding ministerial salary until the end of the financial year so that their performance can be assessed amounts to a very interesting incentive and will spur ministers to achieve those goals that are important to the community.

Who will draw up the assessment criteria, you may ask. Will they be assessed by their fraternal politicians or, perhaps, by the opposition? According to Peter Debnam, the Liberal NSW leader, it will be the NSW Auditor General, the Council on Cost and Quality of Government, and the Premier who will determine whether the goals were met. Mr Debnam, the aspiring Premier, has promised to take the same medicine by linking his salary to how well his team performs. It is gimmicks like these that win elections. It has been proven many times that voters are rather gullible.

In the 2004 election campaign, the then ALP leader Mark Latham pledged to slash the federal politicians' generous superannuation scheme. Soon after, fearing a public backlash, Prime Minister John Howard cut the politicians' super scheme. Come year 2006 and Mr Howard, now comfortable in government, promised to restore the super scheme. So much for election promises!