Jim’s role model
August 2nd, 2010 at 11:00 am by David Farrarnews.com.au reports:
NICK LALICH, Labor MP for Cabramatta and mayor of Fairfield City Council, is one of State Parliament’s ”double dippers”.
When he was elected to Parliament in 2008 at a byelection he decided to keep his job as mayor and collect both salaries.
His parliamentary salary is $130,540 a year, his annual electoral allowance is $39,950, his logistical support allowance is $31,380 and he has a mail-out allowance of $65,384. Total pay and allowances: $267,254.
As mayor he receives $53,980, plus $20,320 as a councillor. He enjoys the full-time use of a council-supplied Ford sedan, and ratepayers pick up the tab for his petrol, registration, insurance and servicing. Total council remuneration: $74,300.
To sum up, as MP and mayor Lalich receives a total of $341,554 a year, which is more than the salary of Prime Minister Julia Gillard ($335,580).
Jim will leave his mentor for dead. His combined salary and expenses if he gets to triple dip may approach one million dollars.
I calculated here his annual parliamentary cost will be $690,000. The Mayor gets paid around $170,000 and one can easily imagine Jim will rake up expenses of $130,000 around his mayoral office. So I reckon Jim may end up costing taxpayers and ratepayers a combined $1 million if he wins.
Plus of course as a 72 year old, Jim is also getting his non means tested national super.
Related posts:
- The welfare state
- An allowance is not an expense claim
- Dom Post on Local Govt Reform
- MPs expense allowances
August 2nd, 2010 at 11:16 am
Not saying that I’d necessarily vote for him, but if he fulfills both roles why shouldn’t he be paid both salaries?
Vote:August 2nd, 2010 at 11:18 am
DPF, fair to note though that it isn’t that Jim is going to cost anyone any extra money as such. The good people of Christchurch are still going to be paying for a mayor, the people of Wigram for an MP, and us schmucks are still going to be paying for a leader of the Progressive party.
So it’s not that Jim is costing any of us extra money. What rankles is that:
Number 1 … Jim thinks he can do full justice to three jobs at the same time, and
Vote:Number 2 … the Progressive party is a complete charade whose only purpose is to massage Jim’s ego.
August 2nd, 2010 at 11:48 am
And we just keep on paying…
Vote:How did these troughers get away with setting up such a lucrative feather bed for themselves?
And why do we keep believing the old rubbish about getting monkeys if we pay peanuts and this is what the private sector does.
Well, we got the monkeys anyway and many have found the private sector is no feather bed.
August 2nd, 2010 at 11:59 am
No one can do 2 full time jobs. Both MP (and party leader) and Mayor are supposed to be full time jobs – often extended hours because of functions etc. It’s not possible to do justice to both jobs.
Vote:August 2nd, 2010 at 12:06 pm
What really is your interest in Jim Anderton, DPF?
It really is up to the people of Christchurch whether or not they want him as mayor and there is no secret that Jim will stay on as an MP and collect both salaries.
As virualmark has pointed out Jim is not going to cost anyone any extra money as there will be an MP for Wigram and a mayor of Christchurch regardless if Jim does both jobs or only one.
I live in Christchurch so I do have an interest in this. I’m undecided as to who to vote for mayor. Bob has made a couple of very poor decisions (paying $17M for land from Dave Henderson) and Jim seems too old and too left wing for me.
I think who is getting paid what, is probably well down the list of things the voters of Christchurch are concerned about.
Vote:August 2nd, 2010 at 12:19 pm
NZ is starting to look like Czechoslovakia. The Czechs weren’t interested in supporting their dull socialist easterners and so the country split in two. Maybe the North Island needs to get rid of the South? They could revel in Anderton-style socialism and the rest of us wouldn’t have to subsidise them or him?
Vote:August 2nd, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Does the question distil down to whether he can successfully perform both roles (i.e. that his total remuneration is basically irrelevant)? Are there stated hours of work in the job descriptions for example?
Vote:August 2nd, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Time that Mr Speaker made some rules about double dipping especially in the public purse.
No matter if its a private company as the shareholders will assess the value added and decide if its is earned.
In the case of public dipping though that’s not the situation. Either elected or appointed those that double dip of the public purse whilst claiming the ability to do proper justice to more than one full time job are deluded, especially when one of those jobs is as a representative (notionally)of a constituency such as an MP is.
The Speaker should require those who are paid as MP’s to be MP’s end of story. Want to do something else, fine but no Parlimentary funding to prop you up.
The best reason to do this which I’m sure you will all aplaude is that it will rid us of the tax payer sucking socialist ones that always feast on public funds.
Vote:August 2nd, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Question: What would Anderton and Labour say if a National MP decided to continue as an MP while also taking on a full time job as CEO of one of NZ’s biggest companies?
Vote:August 2nd, 2010 at 1:10 pm
YesWeDid … I really think the problem with this Christchurch mayoral election is that there’s no good candidates.
Vote:August 2nd, 2010 at 1:15 pm
virtualmark – good point, the total cost is the same but the service the ratepayers get for that money must be worse because he will only be able to provide half as many hours. ( Come to think of it, having Jim putting in fewer hours could quite likely improve the job performance. ). Inevitably some of the work Jim doesn’t have time for will be delgated to other staff or consultants, so there may be pay costs created elsewhere.
Vote:August 2nd, 2010 at 1:57 pm
DPF to be a bit fair you would use the salary figures that Jim would receive rather than staff, travel and similar costs. And then you would subtract the cost of a byelection. And I see from i-Predict that Jim is rated as 90+% chance of winning so that makes it pretty clear voters down there think what he is proposing is fair and responsible.
[DPF: Trevor how does Labour reconcile their support for Jim to be a Mayor and MP, while repeatedly condemning a National MP who was also a City Councillor and calling on him to resign one job]
Vote:August 2nd, 2010 at 2:02 pm
If people want to vote for him what’s the problem?
Vote:August 2nd, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Good job for you T. Mallard. Pays better than the one you have now and much less stress I’d say.
Phil should quit and you and Annette quit and leave the Rainbow Union Party to their disaster. Labour ideals have been submerged among them and no longer prevail.
Vote:August 2nd, 2010 at 2:26 pm
And I see from i-Predict that Jim is rated as 90+% chance of winning so that makes it pretty clear voters down there think what he is proposing is fair and responsible.
It’s not even clear who all is standing yet so I don’t see how you can claim that, it could also mean that they see him simply as less unfair and unreasonable than other known candidate/s. Like Auckland, Christchurch seems to be sadly lacking in quality candidates.
Vote:August 2nd, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Andrew 2-3 jobs Little is struggling in his roles .. I can’t for the life of me understand why Jimbo and Andrew believe they can do multiple roles justice .. now, if they were woman then ok but!!!
Vote:August 2nd, 2010 at 3:37 pm
In my regular travels through the 03s I’ve heard a lot of sensible Christchurch people saying they think Jim will win.
But press them and it’s clear that what they’re really saying is that Bob Parker will lose. I think Jim could mail in his mayoralty campaign and he’d still beat Parker. And I can’t help thinking that Christchurch deserves a better mayor than Jim – probably hard for a 72 year old to offer a lot of new and exciting vision.
Vote:August 2nd, 2010 at 3:41 pm
I wonder if the 90% is more about the rest of the county having assumed that if the people in Christchurch were stupid enough to vote Jolly Jim in over and over again when all he has achieved is to put his own interests before the interest of either his electorate or the country then the same dim-bulbs will vote for him again. This is not to say there is any approval for the man himself.
Following Trevor’s spin that the 90% expectation is approval of jolly Jim I could say that as iPredict was heavily expecting the OCR to go up in the last review that people wanted it to go up…
More simply for prep-school spin puppet Trevor, when I go to sleep at night I have a very high expectation (close to 100%) that I’ll be woken up by the alarm clock in the morning. I would place bets that the alarm will go off at a time when I’d rather stay in bed. That is not to say I approve of the interruption the alarm clock has on my sleep.
Vote:August 2nd, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Trevor – I bought shares on iPredict for Jim to win. Only because it was climbing in price early not because I approve of the old fucker. Noone by shares with their heart or wishes only realistic situations. Perhaps this is where Labour misses the point?
Vote:August 2nd, 2010 at 10:07 pm
i-Predict that Jim has a 90+% chance of dying in the trough.
Vote:August 2nd, 2010 at 11:02 pm
“Number 2 … the Progressive party is a complete charade whose only purpose is to massage Jim’s ego.”
That’s not its “only purpose”. There’s also the not inconsequential issue of the leader’s fund, involving more public money in recognition of his so-called “party”. What you might call a “virtual party”, virtualmark.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 1:30 am
Jim is already costing taxpayers through his blatant disregard to telling the truth. His party is no more and yet he continues to pretend he is a party leader. If the shoes were on the other feet, Labour and co would be screaming bloody murder.
Jim has to resign and I am quite shocked that National etc have not made this little rort more public, it’s a joke.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 8:18 am
Clint, I feel that Key & Co would not waste any political capital on an irrelevance.
The general public don’t care, Jimbo is under the radar and is a non-event to most Kiwis
Talk to people in ChCh who, you would think, should have a closer interest/knowledge than most and they just don’t care. Anyone but Bob is the cry.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 9:09 am
It was not that long ago that Labour, and the opposition in general, was ripping into Bill English for “Double Dipping”. Even though it was totally within the rules, it was “Not a Good Look”
This is “Not a Good Look”
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 9:42 am
slightlyrighty
You know how it works, It’s OK when Labour do it !!!
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Shocking, I can’t believe the people of Christchurch would vote for this guy, he’s like a leftie McCain…
Vote: