Absolutely disgraceful:

<LABOR ministers plundered about $2 million on farewell around-the-world tours in the dying months of the Gillard and Rudd governments.

Expenses records released last night reveal swan songs for the former government's most senior members dominated the almost $3 million overseas travel bill for all senators and MPs reported in the six months to June 30.

While now retired former foreign minister Bob Carr led the way with a $368,000 bill visiting 26 countries, the records also reveal some MPs racked up big costs on individual trips.

In one of the most expensive, the 10-day trip by former climate change minister Greg Combet and ABC newsreader girlfriend Juanita Phillips through France, Belgium and Germany in April has come in at $72,027.

The bill included $57,673 on airfares, $8914 on hotels and meals and $4634 on ground transport.>

http://tinyurl.com/labor-junkets

Wait what? No way! They've got the peoples best interest at heart surely?

And here I've been calling them nothing but blood sucking parasites!
Now I know the reason it's called "Polyticks!" Don't let the spelling fool you!

I have no doubt this sort of thing goes on with ALL politicians of both sides of Parliament.

Shall we look back and check the goings on just before the last Liberal Govt vacated the top job? Or even check them when they were in opposition?

I think we will find the same thing happened.
No surprises here really.
Ho hum.

Suseonline, "I have no doubt this sort of thing goes on with ALL politicians of both sides of Parliament."

You would say that. But even if you allege there have been abuses before, that does not excuse in any way the blatant abuses by these men and women that would not be acceptable in a private company.

In fact in a private company they could be required to pay the money back out of their final pay, and having been outed for abusing their position of trust they would likely find other appointments difficult to get.

Tony Lavis,

As the title of the thread says, 'Liberating Language, Tres 'Progressive'!', and as usual you have strived mightily to show how accomplished you are at it.

Nonetheless the fact remains that use of the particular term could be the basis for a domestic violence order. Nothing you have said dispels that fact.

Sorry, the above post is in the wrong thread. Please disregard.

Suseonline,
two wrongs don't excuse the intend. Of course it happens on all levels & in all sorts of organisations but from what I have witnessed the ALP Public Service just happened to top the charts. Now we have a Coalition Government & the ALP component in the Public Service is still rorting the system although they're getting less blatant now.

$57,673 on airfares for a 10-day trip? Unbelievable. How can that possibly be justified? I just entered an itinerary (Sydney-Paris-Brussels-Berlin-Sydney) with QANTAS, flying first class for two people, and it came in at $37,223 during this (peak) period. A further search for next May/June (another peak season) offered $36,373 for the same itinerary. Of course, those who've been there would know that it isn't necessary to fly from Paris to Brussels, and that rail networks are possibly cheaper and more efficient. I'm guessing the $57k includes an entourage, right? I mean, they're spending $891.40 per night on hotels, assuming that they have rooms booked for each of the 10 days they were there. That's a lot of minibar action!

Posted by *RawMustard* Friday, 13 December 2013 9:31:32 AM

" ... Now I know the reason it's called "Polyticks!" ... "

HaHaHa yes indeed, well said *RM*

*PolyTicks* and *Wig Parasites* who get upwards of $AU500 per hour for writing a paragraph and where what they take 1 month to achieve should take less than 1 week.

As previously said, the flip side of the productivity coin is that way too many people get paid way too much for doing way too little.

And we should all consider being mindful of the fact that $AU (money) is an energy and doesn't dissapear, but rather gets concentrated such that you can be sure that if a whole lot of people are to get a whole lot less, then at least a few people will be getting a whole lot more.

Instead of allowing these individuals to become the non productive "Dead Beats" that they are who sit around ingratiating themselves they should be driven to invest or otherwise be heavily taxed and in that regard there could be some choice opportunities.

As for Holden, whilst tragic for the workers, my view is ... 'em and let them burn as they have been screwing this country along with the likes of Ford and Qantas etc for far too long.

Pick their bones, ravage their carcass and do it yourselves.

Otokonoko,

I am pleased that you have gone straight to the needless excess that I find so exasperating.

It isn't just that they abuse the taxpayers with junkets. It is that they are also so excessive in their self-indulgence.

It really does bother me. I can understand that somebody like the PM might be advised not to travel in the economy cabin - it might be harder to protect him/her from nutters there - but the Climate Change Minister?

I don't really understand the relevance of travel in the lead-up to an election, either. I get that the 'unofficial' campaign period was 10 months long, and that business must be conducted then, but that's a lot of money to be spent by people who have no real assurance that they'll be able to put what they have learnt into action upon their return. I trust that everything he gained on that trip has been tabled and handed over to the new government for use into the future. Though it could have been gained at a far smaller cost!

You're wrong about the Labor people wasting money because Mr Carr was the Forign Minister and has the right to travel about. Other Labor people did prodective things when they went oversaes like trying to find money to help the unemployed people because they knew that the Liberal Party would cause unemployment. Look at Holden and Ford and Toyota the Liberal won't give them anything at all and that's very bad indeed for unemployment!

Misanthrope, you're certainly right that Carr, as foreign minister, was right to spend time travelling. It was part of his job, and he had to do it. I can even accept that, unlike our former Climate Change Minister, he would have needed to travel right up to the election. Foreign Affairs is a very different portfolio and cannot be postponed until after the ten months of political uncertainty are over.

However, we're talking about more than #360k in six months. That's nearly $2,000 a day. I just find that expense a little difficult to justify.

èconomic vandals in many many ways.

Solution: fixed salary payments, no expense accounts.

Must pay for all expenses with own money.
$57,000 trip suddenly costs half as much, if they go at all.

.....I have no doubt this sort of thing goes on with ALL politicians of both sides of Parliament.

Of cause they do Suze, I mean, why else would a lawyer/barrister take on a job with half pay, half a year away from home and more than half the population hating your guts.

The sad part is that most of these so called professionals are pass overs from the corporate world, you know, not good enough to cut the mustard.

Yet we still continue to pay peanuts.

I agree rehctub. They need to offer good salaries to attract the right sort of politicians.

Who, in their right minds, would become a career politician without these 'perks', when the basic salary is not lucrative enough?

It is apparently a tough job , with long hours sitting in Parliament, and much time away from their homes and family for most of the year. And then they have the public constantly whining at them and blaming them for all their problems!

I don't really mind their travel perks, as long as it is all above board and not made up.
If they are found to have rorted the system, then they should be sacked, and not just made to pay it back.

Dear Suse,

We've heard all about the travel rorts, the
attendance at private weddings, the use of
planes for book promotions, the claims for
charity activities, even private libraries
(George Brandis), and the list goes on.
Indeed politicians do have a lot to answer for,
and there's even more. The costs of our former
Prime Ministers is really staggering:

http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/former-prime-ministers-costing-us-millions/story-e6frfmd9-1225945641593#

"Nice if you can get it," indeed!

Not very lucrative? 'The base salary for senators and members $195,130' (http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/ParlBaseSalary). I'd consider that to be quite lucrative. Cabinet ministers receive a loading on top of that - 72.5%. That would put Mr Carr and Mr Combet on over $330k p/a. You'd think they could pay for their own wives' tickets on that sum.

This article (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-01/off-the-hustings-james-glenday-politicians-pay/4790894) goes down the line of 'pay peanuts and get monkeys,' which is fair enough. But we're not exactly talking peanuts - even platinum-plated peanuts with unobtanium cores, are we?

Like I said, I appreciate the need for politicians to travel, and am glad that we live in a society that can afford to send our politicians overseas to meet with their opposite numbers and to ensure that our world becomes a better place. I do, however, believe that it can be done more frugally and with better purpose. Carr was in office for 18 months. In 6 of those, he spent $360k on travel. Can we simply triple that and place his travel bill for his time in office at over $1 million?

Interesting link, Foxy. This set of entitlements for former PMs bothers me as well. What does the taxpayer get for their dollars spent on former Prime Ministers? What has Gough really done to earn his pension in the past decade or two (or three)? What about Malcolm? Keating at least pops his head up, spits bile at us and then disappears again every once in a while. Though I note that he 'saves' taxpayers $70,000 a year with his frugality. Is 'not spending' and 'saving' the same thing?

*Wig Parasites*

Like the British Wig liberals (lefties) of the mid sixteenth century? They were part of PolyTicks also LOL! Seems nothing changes eh?

Dear Otokonoko.

I'm not sure about Mr Keating's so called
"frugality," and what he does with the money
he "saves." One would assume that if he doesn't
spend, he doesn't get. But this may be wishful
thinking. What is outrageous is that according
to the link I found - all these expenses are in
addition to their normal yearly stipend.
And of course Mr Howard abused the system to the
fullest - spending more than any of the others.
He made a point of finding means of spending.
Google this for yourself - it's quite revealing.

All politicians should be made fly 'JETSTAR' I estimate on the $59 Supasaver fare and considering he spent $57673, Jetstar could have flown Bob Carr 2.57 billion km. Which coincidentally happens to be the exact distance from the Earth to Uranus one way "checked baggage not included but maybe be purchased at an extra charge". On arrival at Uranus Bob could have purchase 1297 McDonald's Happy Meals considering he spent $8914 on tucker, Bob will eat 5 star. Also, there is an also, whilst on Uranus our dear Bob could have made no less than 1853 at $2.50 each Pensioner Excursion trips (Bob is a pensioner don't forget) on the Uranus public transport system as he "fact finded" all over the place on our behalf. There is an up side to all this, I did say the trip was ONE WAY!

Otokonoko, now compare that $200K salary with that of a practicing professional and, don't forget to account for being able to spend most nights at home with the family.

Let's face it, a plumber or electrician in the mining sector often earns that and they work two week on two off, and many of them can hardly read and write at better than grade five levels.

In fact, I have had butcher shops making more money than the PM, and no need to talk about the perks.

There are the exceptions in politics, such as Malcom Turnbul, a very wealthy man looking for a challenge I would suggest.

K Rudd didn't need to draw a wage either, thanks to his extremely wealthy wife.

To me it is not really a question of how much they are paid per se, but rather the source of their income (ie the public purse) needs to be considered and more importantly still, what is the cost of their excess, not only in financial terms but also in social terms etc.

You see, currently, the price of their excesses is not enough jobs for everyone, homelessness, inadequate and unacceptable levels of medical treatment and inadequate or no legal representation.

And there is a "dark side" to all of this as without a fixed address abode life can become extremely hard and unpleasant, without being able to afford appropriate medical treatment life may become a situation of having to suffer great pain, discomfort and even premature death, and without legal representation one may suffer imprisonment, huge financial loss and even a snakes and ladders penalty all the way back to the loving arms of Centrelink.

And what is but small change for some in terms of court financial penalties, is wholly destructive to the point of bankruptcy and suicide for others. To say that that's equal treatment as both cases received the same fine is a shallow, disingenuous and nefarious interpretation of our legal principles in my view.

Some time ago I had a scan which cost about $AU100 from memory. Not long after, the cat got clipped by a car and needed an xray and the filthy little parasitic vet wanted $700 for the the cat version of the same scan or puss puss would have to be left to die.

All things said and done, the situation is this way as people who have more than enough money consider that they are more important than others and thus the rules which form the framework of the economy are such that they get first pick and best services and others simply have to go without and that is a significant problem i.m.o.

For me, I want to see both medicine and law relegated to true universal access and not determined by who can pay the most.

Remember, rehctub, that all of those occupations you have mentioned require qualifications. Our politicians do not. For $195k a year, all that is needed is a smarmy smile and the confidence of a party.

Interestingly, though, the majority of politicians seem to come from 'the professions'. There aren't many careers in that category that will afford them the lofty salaries they can achieve in Parliament, unless they make it to boards of directors, etc. (which many do - after all, in politics as well as in the business community, connections are ever-important). Consider:

Corporate lawyers earn on average $151,319. Partners do better, with $174,861.
Financial controllers average $136,650.
University professors/deans average $139,035.
The average employee in the mining sector takes home $142,687.
Non-mining tradies are now averaging in the $60,000s.
Medical specialists are over $250,000.

(http://content.mycareer.com.au/salary-centre)

I'm aware my source isn't bulletproof, and that averages hide very broad variations within fields, but it gives an idea. My point is that our politicians are among the best-paid employees in the nation, even without perks that allow their spouses to travel the world with them. With the money they take home, they can afford to pay their families' own fares if they want them to travel with them. I just ask that they consider doing that.

Care should be taken when making claims about politican's expenses.

I still remember Howard's $250K+ Rome adventure where the taxpayer was stuck with a Royal Suite $10,000 late check-out fee - not to mention his "stay-over" in London just to watch the cricket (also on the public purse).

More recently, when it comes to rorts, Abbott's personal domestic expenses far exceeded Gillard's over the last few years. He still takes the medal for charging the taxpayer for his own self-promotional matters.

Should Malcolm Turnbull's wife be charging the taxpayer $175/day (tax-free) for letting Malcolm stay in her Canberra flat?

The travel rorts saga still has more to come and even Joe Hockey has questions to answer about his personal claims, not to mention Brandis' personal library and bookcase claims.

Despite this attempt at a distraction from the overall matter, the question remains as to why that particular information (which was being freely discussed in the blogosphere) was kept out out the media until after the election - even by the ABC.

Wobbles, you state that care should be taken - but you don't tell us why. Why?

Otokonoko,

This thread was started as an attack against the Rudd government but the fact is that the alternative is no better (if not worse) when it comes to rorting the system.

The "take care" was directed at those who live in glass houses and like to throw stones.

In fact, here's something about Julie Bishop that the media wants to ignore. If it was somebody from the ALP there would have been screaming from the rooftops.

http://imputeation.blogspot.com.au/