Prosych retired academic group wishes to comment on parliamentaryfinancial matters arising from the Prime Ministers 2nd Augustinvitation.
A recent meeting of twentythree of us wish to put forward the followingmatters for consideration. Some thought any submission a waste oftime because nothing would change.Although most opined aLiberal party government is more likely to amend the alreadygenerous benefits provided to Australian parliamentarians.
Our submission wishes to stress that Australia is a small country withminor international influence. Our population is similar to a number ofScandinavian countries . Some of our members have pertinentknowledge regarding other OECD countries. Many have resided therefor many years in academic and various government appointments.There is no doubt our mps are rewarded very generously asparliamentarians when in retirement.We do have people who arecompetent to make comparisons in real purchasing power terms withother countries. Particularly when we consider our population andinternational power. We are not a China or USA.
When it comes to financial renumeration, any review needs takeaccount of fringe benefits. Even the cheap purchase arrangements incafes and parliament supermarket could hardly be more generous.
There are other examples that the Review Committee would know.Our parliamentary members have low number of sitting days . It wasmentioned at about sixtysix days. Compare this with House Commonsin UK who sit approximately 120-130 days.Yet the former in financialmeasurement appear better off.
We felt the benefits paid to former prime ministers is excessive. Whenthey cease office it appears they have lifelong entitlement to first classfares and accommodation for remainder of their life.This also applies tothe spouse.
A former prime minister from this country would hardly have muchinternational influence after a couple of years.Even though the trip mayinclude a visit to the cricket at Lords.
Another benefit is access to the Commonwealth Car pool uponretirement.Why should the late Malcolm Fraser be able to call out a carfrom Melbourne to his property in western Victoria Nareen(?) severaltimes a year to board an international flight from Melbourne.In variousways the amount of money spent by Malcolm Fraser was enormous.
We presumed messrsHawke,Keating and Howard are probablysimilar.Why cannot all parliamentarians retire in much the same wayas any other member of the community.I do know Mr.MikeSmith,retiring chief executive ANZ bank for many years will not have asimilar package for life as our former prime ministers.
Then we have Mr Abbott who is apparently entitled to a pension ofaround $370,000 for the very short time he was prime minister. Thewhole thing is a scandal and should receive more publicity.
There are a number of examples of other largesse that could bementioned. Why go on nothing will change.
It is a pity Australia cannot compare itself with Scandinaviancountries.They too are small countries and act accordingly.
Few days ago I made a submission from Propsych group. I omitted tomention one matter . It concerned west Australian parliamentarians .We thought given such long distances, in a number of cases, theyshould given special consideration with their allowances. .All otherstates and territories to be identical.
Edward J Burke (Dr)