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.