Lets get rid of a government whose P.M. increases politicians superannuation entitlements, yet at the same time reduces the one for people in struggle street, by not letting them make contributions deductible, when turning 70 or 75 in the future. Do they really need those extra few dollars we would be able to add to our super?

Why isn't there a referendum to ask us whether we think it is fair that they need to add to their million plus super, which they can access at any age, even if the people vote them out for doing a bad job?

When I turned 70, I did not realise that the government had something special in mind for me. After all, nothing had changed, I still worked 7 days a week, up to 15 hours a day, still paid my high income taxes, yet I am denied making tax-deductible superannuation contributions! Is this fair?

The polies take those savings and put them together with the proceeds selling telstra, which actually already belonged to the Australian people, and call it the future fund, which they use exclusively to pay their unrealistically high pensions, that they have definitely not earned. Future Fund indeed!

We have an unprecedented water crisis in Australia. Shouldn't the future fund be spent to rectify that situation , rather than pay their morally unjustified pensions? It's our, the taxpayers money, not theirs, and they didn't ask us how we would like it to be spent!

Pauline Hansen had the right idea. One nation, everybody being equal, blacks, whites and politicians! Ours should be jailed for enriching themselves without regard of doing what is right.

Read my blog at http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH and my website at http://www.schorel-hlavka.com to get some idea how politicians of all kind are robbing us (taxpayers) blind.

As a matter of fact their superannuation scheme is unconstitutional! Now, that is something I expose in my mvarious books.

As I wrote to Malcolm Turnbull recently, if I have my way he too be charged for fraudulently obtaining moneys from Consolidated Revenue.

A point here alberto - the future fund is more for those in the public service than the politicians - that is, the staff of government departments.

Sure, government employees probably get more perks than they deserve, but that doesn't mean the workers at government departments don't deserve superannuation - and the future fund was necessary to provide that. We'd roundly castigate any employer that didn't have enough cash to provide super for its employees, so why should government be different.

On the issue of politicians being able to raise their own perks, I'd agree that some other system, such as an independent tribunal of sorts, would be a better option.

I don't approach this from a snout-in-the-trough angle - actually, when you compare the work done by politicians as opposed to higher paid CEOs, the disparity is quite startling. Many (not all) politicians could earn much more from their experience in the private sector (actually, I think this is a more important issue, politicians being able to walk straight into high paid, powerful private sector jobs where their knowledge is used for corporate ends).

I approach it more from the perception angle - it doesn't look good to have people in charge of their own pay. It's a recipe for disaster and it doesn't sit well with the public.