BRW produces its annual Rich List edition today. It apparently features just one current federal politician. As the ABC reports:
Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull says BRW magazine has plucked figures that put his wealth at $178 million “out of the air”.
The magazine says Mr Turnbull is among the 200 richest people in Australia.
But Mr Turnbull says the magazine has “no idea” what the worth is of most of the people on the list.
“It is a speculative figure. It is flattering, but there are many people in the Parliament who have done well in their business lives,” he said.
Mr Turnbull’s net worth is certain to become something of a media talking point in the next 24 hours … reports will be framed around an underlying assumption that he should in some way be embarrassed by his financial success. What rot. If only we had a parliament dotted with rich listers. Men and women who have achieved something in their lives more concrete than the stacking of party branches and the backstabbing of their colleagues. People who entered politics out of a sense of public spirit and duty, never mind the shabby pay and punishing hours. What a rich parliament it would be.
Well, you could think of it like that. You could also think that businesses are run in order to generate profits for the shareholders and pay handsome salaries to those at the top. I suspect that a country run by business people would look to squeeze every last drop of sweat out its employees (or the general public) in order to provide increasing dividends to the shareholders in the government (the companies who ‘donate’ to them). Yeah, that sounds like a great idea.
Who wrote this post by the way? Come on Crikey, get your act together.
This article is as one sided as those that postulate Turnbull should be embarressed by his wealth.
Let’s take everything into context here. If Turnbull is as rich as has been said in BRW magazine, then perhaps we may feel as though he isn’t in touch with those of us who are well, earning less than say $250 000 a year? (Most of us in other words) We’d be kidding ourselves to think that all the pollititians that make it as far as Malcom Turnbill has don’t have any sense of self richousness and enjoy the power this sort of position commands. It’s different to something you get in the private sector, and if someone has beaten the private sector in their mind, then moving to the public for a change isn’t out the question.
I’m certainly not saying that’s what Turnbull has definetly done, but we can’t assume he, along with many other pollititians haven’t done it either.
I agree with this article. Too many people criticise Malcolm Turnbull for his wealth. It’s just as bad as criticising someone at the other end of the socio-economic scale.
Wealth is the last thing Malcolm needs to worry about. He is a bit posh though. And posh Aussies are excruciating in the extreme
@Scoogsy: So, if this article is “as one sided as those that postulate Turnbull should be embarressed [sic] by his wealth”, then we have what’s called “balanced reporting”, yeah?
Personally, I think all the talk of politicians needing to be “in touch with” us is a bit creepy. And a furphy. No-one can be in touch with everyone in that way. We all have our own perspectives. If a rich man (by which you mean “richer than you”, so it’s really just envy, yeah?) isn’t “in touch with” you, just because of a differing bank balance, then presumably we shouldn’t have male politicians because they wouldn’t be “in touch with” women. Or female politicians because they wouldn’t be “in touch with” men.
I don’t want my leaders to be “in touch with” me. I want them to make sound, coherent decisions about the future of the country.