"It's an interesting concept of politics that Mr Rudd has: freezing politicians' wages when he has just received the biggest increment of all politicians over the past three months, going from $235 070 to $330 356.

However, rather than be cynical about that, I think it is fair to show another side to this argument. There is a marketplace for talent and bargain basement price talent is generally an illusion. Ultimately, this pool of politicians has to have the capacity and attributes to run the nation. You do not want Parliament to be the sole domain of the hopeless idealist, the multi-millionaire who doesn't need the salary and those who, quite possibly, couldn't get a job anywhere else.

If you look at the wage scales, I think you would find bank managers in major regional towns would get paid more than backbenchers but do they have an equivalent responsibility in the affairs of the nation?

You must have the capacity to attract people as backbenchers to have the pool of talent available to select future senior ministers. If your local bank manager doesn't want to go into politics because the money's not good enough, then who around town is going to want the job, the precursor to which is you sever any career you are currently engaged in or business you are part of?

The most dangerous thing that can happen in politics is when people attain their financial gain from office, not through the transparency of a wage or salary, but the prospect of the wage or salary they may receive after they leave.

The more there is discrepancy between the politician's salary and the private sector commercial equivalent then the greater the motivation not to go into politics, unless you don't need the money or believe there is a horizon of a better outcome when you get out.

If people believe there is a great financial gain in certain sectors upon their exit from politics and they are relying on that financial gain to bring them to par with their non-political colleagues then more is the impetus, when they are in power, to temper what they say so as not to blot their copy book upon exit.

You need politicians in key offices to work without fear or favour and, although you don't pay them at the top of the commercial field, there has to be some comparison between the two so there's no other financial imperative that works on their decision making whilst in office.

As a backbencher on approximately $130 000, that is a good wage. But, if my wife is not working that is roughly $65 000 each and I don't think most people would say that is over the top. I think it is important to show another side to this argument because, quite obviously, the rhetoric always is "politicians are paid too much" and it makes a good story to dislike them but I've never heard of anybody advocating tyranny or despotism as a far more financially rational alternative."