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/