Government pays Philip Ruddock pension and salary

Philip Ruddock accused of double dipping pension and salary.

Philip Ruddock in the Senate

As the Government's special envoy for human rights, former minister Philip Ruddock receives a healthy remuneration and this is on top of his $200,000 parliamentary pension.

Labor's Penny Wong yesterday asked the Government to explain just how much Mr Ruddock was being paid for his envoy role. Although only paid for the actual days work, the annual salary is between $210, 482 and $241,715. While a parliamentary pension is usually adjusted to take into consideration salary paid for government roles, it appears that as Mr Ruddock bears the title of envoy, this rule does not apply.

"Legal advice was sought on that matter and the legal advice that we were given is that because he bears the title of envoy, it doesn't have an impact on his pension," said head of DFAT's multilateral policy division Dr Lachlan Strahan.

In the Senate yesterday Ms Wong expressed what many might be thinking: "He gets double pay? That's very convenient, because he has a title?"

Mr Ruddock defended the double pay, saying, "The written advice from the Department of Finance is that if it is under a contract with the department - presumably it's happened before - it would have a very marginal impact on my pension, even if it were an office of profit under the Crown," he said.

"It's a daily rate and the impact on the pension is marginal."

What are your thoughts? Is it fair that Mr Ruddock is paid his pension and a salary from the Government? Or should he forego one or the other?

RELATED ARTICLES






    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    btony
    21st Oct 2016
    9:35am
    Just another with his snout in the trough and has no problem with it, because he's trying to justify it.
    People like them , just keep on taking , endlessly whether they need it or not,under the guise of doing something for the country, hahaha,as if.
    ex PS
    21st Oct 2016
    1:29pm
    Be fair, the haven't got their snouts in the trough all the time, they have to remove them so that they can breath from time to time.
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    2:04pm
    That's only long enough so they can ask their bank manager if their 'pay' came in on pension day.... these guys would outdo US Special Forces trainees with their ability to hold their breath ....
    Tom Tank
    21st Oct 2016
    4:28pm
    Actually they breathe through the same part of the anatomy they speak through thus can keep their snouts in the trough
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    4:51pm
    I've heard that detail of politician physiognomy before.... Anal
    Aspiration.... the kind of scientific term that could be construed in several ways....

    On another forum I launched, during the reign of Tony I, a Men In Black IV - Invasion of The Viagrans.... story line... Viagrans breathe through their anus, which is why they always have this serious look on their face.... and often look ill.....
    bob
    21st Oct 2016
    9:56am
    with a guaranteed salary of $200,000 plus all the other benefits (travel etc) that go with this anyone of decency would either not accept the extra salary, or donate it to a charity even if he does not get a tax benefit for doing this.Just goes to show what a low level of politicians we have.
    Old Geezer
    21st Oct 2016
    10:01am
    I have no problem with this as his and with the sort of income he is getting he would be paying a lot back in tax anyway.

    It is the same as me getting paid for my investments plus a wage for a job.
    moke
    21st Oct 2016
    3:12pm
    Old Geezer if this was some poor person on an ordinary age pension or on the dole they would certainly be in trouble and have to pay back any extra. The say people on the dole are bludgers but most if not all politicians would be bludgers given the opportunity. It is time they lived like everyone else
    Snowwhite
    21st Oct 2016
    3:38pm
    Old Geezer knowing the Fascists it's probably all tax free!! Ha Ha
    Tom Tank
    21st Oct 2016
    4:38pm
    Retired MP's get taxed at the rate of 15% provided their pension does not exceed $300,000 per annum.
    Snouts are still in trough.
    Ruddock, given his exceptional retirement benefits paid by the taxpayer, and his declared commitment to serving Australia should do the job without further payment.
    This was the man who refused to give back his Amnesty International badge back when it became obvious he put politics in front of human rights.

    21st Oct 2016
    10:05am
    Philip Ruddock has never shown an ounce of principle in his life.

    His double dipping may be legally OK, but it is certainly morally wrong.
    Marten
    21st Oct 2016
    1:41pm
    Entirely agree. Only when he retires from his present position he is entitled to a pension, the same as we folks do.
    capricorn
    21st Oct 2016
    10:11am
    This is greediness to the max. Why not donate this extra money to the NEEDY?
    Needy
    21st Oct 2016
    2:03pm
    Yes to me, thank you

    21st Oct 2016
    10:19am
    It is this DISGRACEFUL sort of stunt, amongst the many, many others regarding politician salaries, benefits, and retirement allowances, which has instigated Age Pension cuts, rob from the aged and give to the lazy, fat, idle, greedy, no-hopers in government. Pathetic!
    redxdingo
    21st Oct 2016
    10:44am
    Phillip Ruddock is a HUMAN RIGHTS Envoy ....That's a laugh in itself !!
    rtrish
    21st Oct 2016
    11:17am
    Agreed, redxdingo!
    particolor
    21st Oct 2016
    2:38pm
    Its trending ! Have a look at the HUMAN RIGHTS "UN" Incumbent :-(
    moke
    21st Oct 2016
    3:16pm
    The only human rights he wants to see are his own and they are not right
    grounded
    21st Oct 2016
    10:46am
    What has Ruddock done that is illegal or immoral!

    Ruddock did not set the employment criteria for this position..at all....yet the ensuing mob mentality will demand his lynching.

    Ruddock didn't set the terms or conditions for this position! Why the hate on Ruddock? Is this posting about the indecency of the amounts paid to Legislators/Bureaucrats, or just a hate fest on Ruddock?

    Wong would have been far more credible if she had used her Senate position to reform the spec for this job - not go on a confected rant, designed no more than to incense the monkey minded populace of suggestions of pigs, snouts in the trough and double dipping.

    Oh, we armchair critics.....we really do get the politicians/bureaucrats we deserve!
    Anonymous
    21st Oct 2016
    11:24am
    Rubbish.

    I would NEVER have voted for an unprincipled hypocrite like Ruddock.

    YOU might deserve him. I don't.
    grounded
    21st Oct 2016
    11:53am
    Now that is the litmus proof Barak. Ruddock appears to be the whole, only issue for you. I personally couldn't care less if it was a Smith, Jones or Green....a Laborite or a Liberal.

    Far better to reform the obscenity of the amount and it's spec criteria ...i.e. "envoy" designation, than harp on about a one bit player....as in this case, Ruddock.

    I'm happy to see that you have never voted for Ruddock....nor have I....but then again, nor would I ever vote for Wong...though that is not going to do one thing toward effecting a change to this rip off. Cheers.
    Anonymous
    21st Oct 2016
    12:11pm
    All jobs-for-the-boys/girls are unacceptable. Given his background, this particular job for Ruddock, however, just plain stinks.
    Old Geezer
    21st Oct 2016
    12:27pm
    I agree Ruddock has done nothing illegal or immoral. It is no different than someone working that has income for other sources.

    Good luck to him.
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    12:39pm
    grounded - you - like so many others - seem to be stuck endlessly in the rut of assuming that what was set up to benefit those actually setting it up, is the way it should be and always must be.

    It's called 'feather-bedding' and was and remains a primary focus of LNP assaults on Unions, whose members they claim are 'padding out' their work so as to incur extra income, and are 'ghosting' shifts when they don't even show up for work, or are being otherwise paid for work not done.

    It was that way in some industries for years, and has been changed now.... so why is there any presumption that the way politicians past are paid should not be changed for the better?
    Old Geezer
    21st Oct 2016
    2:43pm
    Trebour it is no different that if I had a tax free super pension and then got another job after I retired. That would have been set up for my benefit by me.
    Snowwhite
    21st Oct 2016
    3:44pm
    Grounded we don't get the politicians we deserve but we sure get what the uninformed vote for unfortunately.
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    3:56pm
    OG - under the Trebor Party changes that will all become a fond memory.... I fail to see entirely why anyone who has the wherewithal during working life to support a hefty retirement package and live well, should have the opportunity to continue to do so after retirement.

    Nobody else gets that chance, and I can assure you there are around 24 million Australians who would love a chance at a politician's salary, perks and retirement scheme, but while Australians are welded to the two parties, things will never change, and politics will always remain a self-fattening exercise at the expense of everyone else.
    LiveItUp
    22nd Oct 2016
    7:20am
    Trebour I now earn more in retirement than I did working at a job. So your party would deny me this. This is not fair at all.
    Cogsen
    21st Oct 2016
    10:46am
    Show me a politician, past and present, who will do the right thing morally and ethically where salary, benefits and pension are concerned, I will personally show you the way to UTOPIA!
    qwerty
    21st Oct 2016
    9:09pm
    Ted Mack.

    He deliberately resigned a day or two before he was due to receive a parliamentary pension entitlement. Exactly the sort of person our pollies could model themselves on. A man of integrity.
    Waiting to retire at 70
    23rd Oct 2016
    8:54am
    Not only did Ted Mack do this when he was the Federal Member for North Sydney, he also did it earlier when he was the Member for North Shore in NSW parliament.

    Cogsen, UTOPIA directions please.
    jackie
    21st Oct 2016
    10:50am
    The disgusting truth is all our retired politicians have been double dipping all along. Many have had jobs and received the pension upon retirement. Pensions need to be overalled for everyone including them. It should be means tested and be the same amount as for all Australian citizens. Rich people that double dip are doing it out of greed, not through necessity. Shame shame shame.
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    12:42pm
    Many also retain business interests while sitting in Parliament - isn't that double dipping?
    BrianP
    21st Oct 2016
    10:55am
    Perhaps if I get a "Title" Centrelink will pay me and let me keep income from a job. Ha Ha.

    Can we hear what good Mr Ruddock has done in this role?
    Anonymous
    21st Oct 2016
    11:29am
    Centrelink has been renamed Department of Human "Services" - another misnomer, or two.
    Ruddock having the position is a classic example of nepotism, a practice this government is infamous for.
    MICK
    21st Oct 2016
    11:03am
    This is an old issue and many others, including lifters and leaners man Joe Hockey, abuse the same system. It may be legal but it ain't right. And that includes access to super before retirement age.
    Never be surprised that pollies, judges and the top end of society write different rules for themselves from taxation to super. The decay of the fair go has been under way for a while and the well to do milk the system for all that it is worth. That is the shame in what our country has become.
    Anonymous
    21st Oct 2016
    11:17am
    I agree Mick, it's not the people who receive the lurks and perks we should be ranting about but the people who made the rules. Wait a minute, maybe they are one and the same.
    maxchugg
    21st Oct 2016
    11:43am
    Mick, you are right. I have posted elsewhere that Joe Hockey retired at around age 50 on an indexed for life pension of around $190,000 a year, and that if he only makes it to 75 he will collect almost $3 million in pension payments. But, immediately after retirement he immediately gets a plum job in the US for around $250,000 a year.

    If you become a member of parliament, serve a couple of terms and qualify for an indexed parliamentary pension for life, why would you worry about losing your seat, why expend too much effort working hard for your electorate to ensure your re-election? The entire system is totally counterproductive.

    Parliamentary pensions should become payable at the same age as the Old Age Pension. Then the retirement age would be more likely to go down than up!
    particolor
    21st Oct 2016
    2:19pm
    Stop speaking ILL of our Ambassador to Washington !! He's so Deserving of Double Pay ! And perhaps a triple pay when coming back as Adviser to Somethingorother Pty/Ltd. :-)
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    4:54pm
    Joe - Joe For President... kind of a sense of deja vu about that one... you mark my words.....
    particolor
    21st Oct 2016
    5:07pm
    You light my Cigar, I'll light yours :-) :-)
    maxchugg
    22nd Oct 2016
    10:30am
    Trebor, it seems that even Joe would be an improvement on what is currently on offer as the new US President.

    I also don't want to be seen to be making a personal attack on Joe, who is working within the rules. We need to change the rules.

    21st Oct 2016
    11:06am
    This is a recycled topic, we had the same questions put about retiring politicians in March this year. It is noted that all of those highlighted in that article are Coalition members whilst, as an afterthought, Labor retirees are named without the amount they were to receive shown. I suppose if I was to suggest a bias that I would cop a lot of flak but that's how it looks to me. I wonder if this forum has any connection with our ABC?
    grounded
    21st Oct 2016
    11:10am
    A Thinker! Well done 'Old Man'.
    Anonymous
    21st Oct 2016
    11:25am
    I condemn such behaviour no matter who does it.

    That is simply a look-over-there post.
    Anonymous
    21st Oct 2016
    11:46am
    If it is a "look-over-there' post Barak it will be like looking in a mirror. It's the same soap opera with different actors.
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    12:49pm
    I think everyone is aware and agrees that all politicians are tarred with the same brush - I for one, vote for NONE of the incumbent lot any more due to their treason and betrayal of this country for their own benefit and that of their mates. By now most of you should know my reasons
    , so I won't expound them here again.

    On another forum someone said the primary benefit of 'private schooling' is the contacts you make - the question then rears its ugly head - if this entire country is being run on nepotistic lines for the benefit of a few insiders - why are any of even considering voting for the major parties - between whom there is the thickness of a cigarette paper in reality (Lord Jim on heroism and cowardice).

    I, for one roundly criticise ANY politician who quits or is booted out, and then cops a free fancy feed for life, while generating untold millions in extra funds in some other sweet ride, including those who quit at 40-odd to 'spend more time with their family', and then take up a sweet ride as some esteemed professor or whatever in some dim-witted university which actually thinks these people have some merit, after what they've done to this country.
    Anonymous
    21st Oct 2016
    4:22pm
    I would add to your comment TREBOR in that if a politician stands for re-election and his or her party fails to regain the government benches and then spits the dummy and resigns then the cost of the by-election is to be borne by the person resigning. The alternative to that is to move in the person who came second in the seat. Now that would certainly stop a lot of resignations.
    Gunner
    21st Oct 2016
    11:07am
    There sure is a good reason why the term "political Class" has entered our media vocabulary...
    they are treated different to "ordinary" Australians in every way and this is only just one small example..given the suffering throughout Australia at present and the cut-backs to support pensions and benefits...to many to call, this behavior by members of the so called "Political Class" is appalling but expected when our system is out of control. BTW, Political Class is an oxymoron.
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    12:50pm
    .. round out.... on the money, Gunner - keep 'em coming....
    particolor
    21st Oct 2016
    2:25pm
    So is "The Honourable" :-)
    Nomad1946
    21st Oct 2016
    11:11am
    I can only say, "He is not alone, dig deeper" .... Let's look at all the exMP's now holding positions overseas as "envoys", etc. ???
    particolor
    21st Oct 2016
    2:09pm
    I searched our Sty and found about 20 Pigs :-) :-)
    I'll find the other hidden ones later !!

    21st Oct 2016
    11:13am
    OK, absolutely off topic but just a note to the administrators of this forum. Can we have some different topics please as we seem to be getting pensions, super, pollies pay, in rotation. How about a subject like Gillian Triggs which should provoke a lively discussion. You could ask why she did nothing about children in detention when there were about 2000 under Labor but called for an inquiry when there were less than 100 under the Coalition. You might also question why she lied to a Senate inquiry about comments she made against the government and only confessed when she found that her comments were recorded and were found to be accurate. Just a thought.
    bebby
    21st Oct 2016
    11:54am
    Old Man, is it possible for you to address the subject instead of raving on about the "biased ABC" and the lefties?
    Anonymous
    21st Oct 2016
    12:00pm
    Sorry bebby, I've read and reread this post but I still can't find where I mentioned the ABC or lefties. Help me out here please.
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    12:51pm
    Might be Old Geezer..... easy to confuse the two....
    bebby
    21st Oct 2016
    1:15pm
    Old Man, it was remarks you made on your 11.06am post. You actually didn't use the word leftie, however I made the assumption that is what you meant by using the words Labor and ABC. Please correct me I am wrong. I will stand corrected.
    Anonymous
    21st Oct 2016
    1:57pm
    You have the right to an opinion bebby but perhaps you should have expressed that opinion on the post with which you disagreed. I also have opinions and the only thing I really object to is when I get accused of saying things I didn't say.
    bebby
    21st Oct 2016
    1:58pm
    Old Man, meant to say Please correct me IF I am wrong.
    Snowwhite
    21st Oct 2016
    3:53pm
    Old man be careful your bias is showing re Gillian Triggs. And I doubt this forum is connected to the ABC as you questioned in an earlier comment. But no harm in trying to suggest that of course.
    Anonymous
    21st Oct 2016
    4:04pm
    Thank you Snowwhite, your comments are noted. As regards Triggs, she is a public figure who has broken the rules and should be talked about. This topic is all about a man who gave public service to his nation through politics and has broken no rules.
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    4:55pm
    Ah - but rules are meant to be changed.... does the NRL or Rugby today look the same as forty years ago? Not on your Bloody Slow Cup!
    rtrish
    21st Oct 2016
    11:17am
    Pigs. Snouts. Trough.
    John
    21st Oct 2016
    11:31am
    Well said Old Man.
    Pigd will fly before this web site ever criticises a labour polotician or a HR Lefty like Tricky Triggs.
    Oscar
    21st Oct 2016
    11:19am
    He is entitled too his superannuation the same as anyone else
    He is all entitled too a job if he wants it at his age
    He has the experience for it
    Lots of people gave jobs after they are so called retire
    Anonymous
    21st Oct 2016
    11:26am
    Did he get this job on merit?
    Oscar
    21st Oct 2016
    11:42am
    He certainly has the experience
    Anonymous
    21st Oct 2016
    11:50am
    Barak, you have the right to stand for a seat in the parliament and if you attract enough votes you will have considered to have got there on merit.
    Rae
    21st Oct 2016
    11:50am
    I'd say he did. He was every a tricky politician and would fit in extremely well with the neoliberals playing at human rights and those demanding population growth and huge immigration levels to control workers and wages.

    Orwell was so right about the Newspeak he saw coming.
    particolor
    21st Oct 2016
    2:47pm
    And there's NOTHING like having an EX Government Employee on the team with all that Inside Information !!:-) :-)
    BONUS !! :-) :-)
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    4:01pm
    Yes - true experts - experts on stuffing things up and twisting and distorting everything to suit their personal or party ideology.
    Aussie
    21st Oct 2016
    4:14pm
    Oscar
    Maybe you have a lot of money to live but please think and learn before you make this stupid statement.

    If you have other income under the pension scheme your pension get reduced .........even if you get the Bonus scheme OH OH OH you do not know about the Bonus scheme ....of course you don't know so go to Centrelink and learn what happen when you make to much money OK ???? Then come back here and make intelligent statements
    Kelpie
    21st Oct 2016
    11:31am
    he is just another greedy polli,shame on him
    Not Senile Yet!
    21st Oct 2016
    12:23pm
    Former Mp's who are on a Pension.....which is Parliamentary Welfare...so they say....should have to abide by the SAME ASSETS TESTS that they now apply to ALL Welfare Recipients!
    Good enough for the Goose...Good enough for the Ganders!
    Old Geezer
    21st Oct 2016
    12:29pm
    MP are not on welfare OAP are.
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    12:59pm
    Incorrect as usual OG - OAP have paid their way in full - politicians put in a miniscule amount towards their 'pension'. And the vast difference between 'welfare' and Social Security has been explained many times.

    Welfare is the philosophy or intention to achieve well-being and security for a chosen group - Social Security is the funding that is provided to achieve that end, and Social Security has been contributed to for OAP over a lifetime of work and paying taxes of all kinds. The same applies to Unemployment Benefits, which is worked out on the (dare one us this term?) paradigm that the person receiving it is in the process of a lifetime of contribution towards its funding through working and paying taxes.

    I know that's hard to get your mind around... but it is the simple reality.

    So politician's Social Security is skewed and out of kilter with the rest - and if they continually seek to place rightful Entitlements (non ™) to Social Security as 'welfare' for their own propaganda benefit, then they must accept being equally tarred with the same brush - if not having feathers added (from their feather-beds?) and run out of town on a rail (is that the railways they no longer operate in the bush? Or the ones where they buy carriages that don't fit stations from South Korea to 'save' 30%, thus losing the 30% of income tax paid by those building them, as well as the 'flow-on' (dare one say 'trickle-down) taxes that derive from economic activity for and by AUSTRALIANS.
    Old Geezer
    21st Oct 2016
    1:32pm
    OAP has nothing to do with what anyone paid in taxes or earnt over their lifetime. It is a welfare payment to keep old people that haven't the means to support themselves out of poverty.
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    2:08pm
    Wrong - its funding is drawn from taxes paid throughout a lifetime - and everybody pays taxes every day, including the SAH parent, the fact that the amount paid is not dependent on the amount put in is irrelevant, though easy to confuse.

    The confusion is easily fixed by paying everyone the pension and taxing all income and fringe benefits over and above that according to the appropriate income tax scale.
    Old Geezer
    21st Oct 2016
    2:16pm
    Not correct as I get zilch back for the zillions I paid over the years.
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    4:11pm
    You will under the Trebor Scheme - you'll get your Pension full and found and then can pay tax on all other income and perks.

    Sound good?

    The social security system is not set up to give in return for level of commitment - it is designed as a blanket cover for all under the existing rules. A severely disabled person could, for example, go through life without working a day - but as well as still paying tax on every bit of expenditure etc - can still receive their Entitlement (non ™) under our Social Security provisions, and that includes a full OA pension.

    On the other hand, UNDER THE EXISTING RULES, which can be changed as situations change and quite obviously now need to be in many ways, including politician etc retirement, a person who has been lucky enough to get a good ride in life and earn a heap or two, so that they have NO NEED for a pension, does not get it.

    The next argument begins at how to determine that a person does not NEED a pension, with some advocating that the family home be included in assets, which would bust many current pensioners.

    Once again, the easiest way is to pay everyone a Pension at Pension age, then tax all income and fringe benefits over and above that.

    Then the next argument begins at how to determine what is and what is not a 'fringe benefit'....

    So you begin to see the need for an absolute overhaul, starting from the bottom... with a tabula rasa .. and re-doing the whole scheme.

    Let's just do what Jack Ryan did in that Tom Clancy novel in which the Stock Exchange was crashed by a foreign nation - we'll simply restart at where we were in 1899..... and fix it all up from there.
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    12:35pm
    Of course he is within his rights. The issue is, and is rapidly becoming move and more in the public eye - is whether or not part-time, short-term contracted employees are owed an income for life on top of any other income they may derive from working after their contract is expired.

    NOBODY else in this country gets such a sweet ride, ESPECIALLY in this day and age of employment uncertainty.

    His 'pension' should be means tested in relation to any other income, and over a certain amount - he gets nothing until he actually retires, same as everyone else.

    This self-interested installed for personal benefit idea that politicians and the like are sacrificing their opportunity to earn income by 'serving' at a hefty remuneration and perks, is long out-dated, and if they are capable of 'earning' income (oh, yeah - just another sweet ride for an old political hack and mate, still on the public teat, with all benefits including extra 'super'), they should be receiving nothing from the public purse, same as everyone else.

    There ends the discussion......
    Toddy
    21st Oct 2016
    2:14pm
    I agree completely!!!!
    ex PS
    21st Oct 2016
    1:28pm
    How about we pay retired politicians a multiple of the Pension. Five times the average Pension would be fair and generous, but it would have to be means tested and collected after retirement. It would also save us money.
    Old Geezer
    21st Oct 2016
    1:35pm
    I just wish people could realise that what pollies get has nothing to do with our welfare system. It is part of an package that pollies get when the take up the position. Just like anyone else who takes up a position. You get so much in wages and the rest in perks.
    Rae
    21st Oct 2016
    1:50pm
    I actually believe the pollies broke that contract though OG.

    Defined benefit superannuated PS were promised perks too for the compulsory after tax payments they were forced to contribute. Those perks have been rescinded so I figure political perks may be up for negotiation and change as well. If we can't afford it then we can't afford it and it is as simple as that.

    Everyone needs to cut back a bit and that includes the pollies on the public purse.
    ex PS
    21st Oct 2016
    8:37pm
    Exactly OG, their retirement benefits built into their salary packages should reflect the retirement benefits that they have delivered for the average Pensioner. In this way their KPI's are linked to the payout they all seem to strive to achieve.
    If you look again you will see that I did not refer to Politicians Retirement Benefits as welfare.
    johnp
    21st Oct 2016
    1:35pm
    Makes a mockery of the Govt saying pensioners and the self funded have to to be severely limited in their income cos of the budget deficit etc. Govt has lost all credibility when it comes to their reasons that pensioners etc have to limit and reduce their spending to prop up and save Federal coffers
    Andy
    21st Oct 2016
    1:40pm
    NO there is not one, and never has been one Politician that is even worth their pension, I have said it a million times, and its time every one else says, that it is time to bring all Ploiticians pensions back inline with every one elses pension.
    particolor
    21st Oct 2016
    1:51pm
    Theirs is not a Pension !! Its an ENTITLEMENT !!
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    2:14pm
    That's an Entitlement ™, parti, as opposed to an Entitlement pure and simple. One (the ™) is an instrument of rhetoric and propaganda - the other is a bought and paid for Right under out taxation and social security system.

    What that great comedian Tony meant, when he said 'the age of entitlement is over' - was 'the age of entitlement ™ is over'.

    The ™ cam about as part of LNP rhetoric to somehow, without actually stating so, that anyone receiving social security was receiving an entitlement ™, which could be rescinded at the whim of the government, and also to imply that such people were bludgers and a blight on the economy.....

    I can think of many categories of Australian who are bludgers and a blight on the economy (you may provide your own list here) - none of them receive OAP, Unemployment Benefits, or the majority of DSP.

    There MAY be some aspects of social security that need to be tightened up or altered - often back to where they were - but those core social security commitments and duties of government, as I state above, are not part of those.
    maxchugg
    24th Oct 2016
    10:34am
    Andy, you need to remember that retired politicians are drawing from a superannuation fund to which they contributed during their parliamentary careers. Private individuals are now also paying into superannuation funds which should yield higher retirement incomes than they would have received had they relied upon the pension.

    What is wrong is that everyone else has to wait until they reach retirement age before they can begin to draw on their superannuation. Joe Hockey, on the other hand, was a member of parliament for 19 years (1996 - 2015) and would have been making contributions to the parliamentary superannuation fund for that time. Without knowing a reasonable guess would be that Joe paid around $300,000 into the fund while he was in office.

    BUT: Joe is allowed to elect to retire at age 50 and immediately begin to collect a pension reported to be an indexed $190,000 a year for life. Assume Joe only makes it to 75 he will collect $4.75 million.

    And who knows where this ends? Joe is probably contributing to another superannuation fund as he toils away in the US for a paltry $250,000 a year.

    Joe told us that we need to be lifters, not leaners and he could well have been right. We need to do a lot of lifting to support his leaning.
    andromeda143
    21st Oct 2016
    1:41pm
    I would not pay Ruddock or any other parliamentarian any more than the average pension for a public servant. MP's and former MP's get money for doing secret deals, passing laws which the general public disagree with and ignoring what most citizens want. I don't call that service above and beyond.
    gumtree
    21st Oct 2016
    1:41pm
    I work or my wife works and my pension is either reduced or eliminated. Why should a politician be different? Give pension up to a charity Ruddock if you want to use the law to keep the pension.
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    2:17pm
    Cannot agree more. I've been pensioned for years and had pension reduced every time I work, essentially making it non-viable to work over a certain level - at which, of course, most employers do not want to know you.....

    I'm still looking for work in my new region, BTW... I'm good for it, but I may have to settle for working for the Veterans association, the council in the library, Community Transport, or Meals on Wheels - all of which don't necessarily pay my costs.
    Old Geezer
    21st Oct 2016
    3:19pm
    My pension does not vary at all with what I earn. Most pensions don't.

    It is about time they changed the name of the OAP to "Seniors Welfare payment" because it is not a true pension at all. For a start 65 is not old age.
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    4:18pm
    It is when you could make a mockery of Brokeback Mountain... that's one hell of a hill to climb with a broken back, knees and such.....

    But then again - for many years I've happily said I would not retire if someone were to offer me a job I could do without injury etc, and would happily work on and on, rather than be pensioned off.

    When nobody offers, and you can't even get into a course like Law unless you are a currently Entitled ™ twerp type, and become of some use to the community (I was seeking to combine social services and Law to assist the Veteran community and a few others, cheap or free or for costs) - and you cop the 'too old' slag time after time.... well.. you just have to say.... them dang fools jest ain't right in the head, Jethro.... not one licka sense a'tween the lot of 'em!
    particolor
    21st Oct 2016
    1:48pm
    Its a NEVER ENDING STORY !!
    OINK ! OINK !!
    Refill the trough Serfs !!
    libsareliars
    21st Oct 2016
    1:49pm
    Outrageous greed. How much is enough for these bludgers? It has to stop.
    particolor
    21st Oct 2016
    2:03pm
    Yes ! I can "just Imagine" that happening !!
    Toddy
    21st Oct 2016
    2:11pm
    I often wonder whether there should be an independent review of politician pensions and entitlements? I cannot understand why they have a different set of rules? How come their super is not affected by the economic climate? Surely, they should lead by example. I also cannot see why they continue having lucrative perks after retirement. My few perks ceased when I retired. They should also NOT be able to access their super until the appropriate age has been reached. They are not untouchable "gods" and should not be able to make rules regarding their pensions and conveniently put it into the constituition where it becomes ?untouchable! Wouldn't we all like to do this to our own advantage!
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    2:36pm
    But they do have an independent review every time they get a pay rise.. by a group of people whose salaries equally are affected by the same approved rise.....

    Funny that......
    particolor
    21st Oct 2016
    3:31pm
    :-) :-) :-) < Sarcasm !!
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    4:19pm
    Lowest form of with - apart from me I'm told....
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    4:20pm
    Wit.. WIT - get with it, Trebor...
    Lula
    21st Oct 2016
    2:15pm
    Ruddock's salary pension should be discounted in proportion to his salary, like everyone else. Otherwise this is corruption and contravening the regulations that apply to all Australians.
    Mad as Hell
    21st Oct 2016
    2:19pm
    Another reason not to vote Liberal or Greens
    Toddy
    21st Oct 2016
    2:24pm
    Or labour........ Change the system!
    particolor
    21st Oct 2016
    3:01pm
    We could go on all day here ! It wont make ANY DIFFERENCE !!
    The French got it right a while back there in History !! Twice in fact !
    But they never learned from it!!
    A Basket Case again :-( :-(
    And down the Same Road we all go again :-(
    Aussie
    21st Oct 2016
    4:28pm
    As I say many many times Australia does not have leaders that:

    1 - Love their Country
    2 - Love their People
    3 - Work for the future of the people and the country

    No No No We only have a bloody seat warmers

    WE NEED LEADERS - YOUNG PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR THE COUNTRY AND OUR PEOPLE

    We do not need Bastards and greedy people
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    5:00pm
    WE NEED LEADERS - PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR THE COUNTRY AND OUR PEOPLE

    All fixed for you - that'll be $1800 a day or part thereof for sitting on a Commission of Audit Into LTC Mis-statements...

    But your first fix is free... enjoy....
    Mindy
    21st Oct 2016
    2:24pm
    What a bunch of whingers.

    There are thousands of ex-PS and ADF members who are on a pension and, from necessity or to contribute to society, continue to work part or full time. Pension is part of a prior contract and has nothing to do with current employment.
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    2:38pm
    MOST ex-PS and ADF members don't get all those perks for life... or anywhere near the amount these gods get - indexed for life.

    That's precisely why they have to work..... not just engage in a little luxury job to pick up a few lazy thou a year to cover cost of good whiskey...
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    2:39pm
    I mean ex-PS and ADF needing to work to fill up the purse a little....
    Mindy
    21st Oct 2016
    2:24pm
    What a bunch of whingers.

    There are thousands of ex-PS and ADF members who are on a pension and, from necessity or to contribute to society, continue to work part or full time. Pension is part of a prior contract and has nothing to do with current employment.
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    2:40pm
    I said you are repeating yourself - didn't you hear me the third time? Wanna see it again?
    particolor
    21st Oct 2016
    2:43pm
    STEREO ! :-) :-)
    MjP
    21st Oct 2016
    2:28pm
    This is just another example of politicians in general and the coalition politicians in particular benefiting themselves while screwing everyone else.
    particolor
    21st Oct 2016
    2:41pm
    Screw the Serfs !!:-) :-) :-)
    Bill
    21st Oct 2016
    3:10pm
    I completely agree with "grounded" as far as the mentality goes. You other two-faced bastards make me laugh. You are all just jealous that you couldn't/didn't do it.

    If you reckon various former politicians can't/shouldn't have at least two forms of income., well, that's alright I suppose. But in that case pay them what they are really due and that due is a MASSIVE pay rise. Consider what the Prime Minister down are paid then consider some others, e.g. the head of the Commonwealth Bank, the heads of various companies, gee all tho e poor bastards are GROSSLY underpaid having to look after the running (for good or bad) as well as idiots like those that have nothing better to do with their time but write stupid, fatuous, cant on here and try to shove their political views down everyone elses' throats.

    And using Penny Wong as a moral heroine. Huh, laughable. Ask her what happened to her "mate" when her quietly slipped out of the Senate a few weeks ago. Huh! You lot make me laugh ....... but the likes of her gotcha again.
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    4:22pm
    Pay peanuts and you get monkeys? Or pay monkeys and all you get is peanuts and guano?

    There is no comparison between a persons serving the public out of the good of their heart, with all our best intentions in mind (tongue stuck in cheek), and a rapacious bank or similar capitalist CEO etc...

    In reality, on record, NONE of them is worth his/her salt.
    bandy
    21st Oct 2016
    3:15pm
    Come on guys we should be used to this conduct by now we are talking about politicians.
    particolor
    21st Oct 2016
    3:27pm
    Yes ! Get your Minds out of the Gutter !!:-) :-)
    Aussie
    21st Oct 2016
    3:54pm
    SO WHY EVERYBODY COMPLAIN WHEN WE PENSIONERS GO AND LIVE OVERSEAS WITH A REDUCE PENSION OF $820.50 x FORTNIGHT WHILE THE SEAT WARMERS CAN HAVE OVER 200,000 + IN PENSION AND A CASUAL JOB FOR ABOUT ANOTHER 200,000 + AND NO PENSION REDUCTIONS ......

    THIS IS A F>>>>N JOKE

    PLEASE DO NOT COMPLAIN WHEN WE GO TO LIVE OVERSEAS WITH A SMALL REDUCED PENSION

    !@#$%^&*!!@#$%^& !@#$%^&!@#$%^

    THIS IS NOT FAIR FOR US ........
    Dotty
    21st Oct 2016
    4:16pm
    Exactly ! They are mostly all pigs anyway when itb comes from making the Government Coffers lighter !
    No wonder us poor old Pensions get nothing as the bloody ex Politicians are taking all the Coffers with them when they leave and are still not happy and want more !
    No wonder Australia is getting in the red so far!1
    I say their Super should be halved and that they should only get the ordinary Pension like the rest of us !
    I know they have served their time etc etc ! But I am sure they come out of that when they retire with a heap of money as they are awarded so much and usually to themselves every year !
    But us poor old Pensioners get a couple of dollars twice a year and they they begrudge us that anyway !
    Greedy pigs they are !
    Dotty
    Aussie
    21st Oct 2016
    4:24pm
    Dotty

    A bit more than our pension is OK but the difference is exorbitant
    Our maximum pansion including Rental assistance is today $26,220 x Year His pension is $200,000 + a difference of $173,780 x Year

    I will love o get 10% more of what we get now

    And if you go overseas for more than 6 weeks you get reduced to a minimum of $820.60 x fortnight
    And if you have a job and earn more money you may lose your pension.

    But not the Politicians They are Untouchables Bastards
    Foxy
    21st Oct 2016
    4:17pm
    Hey! I have a real title although it doesn't bring in any money. Do you think I can have my FULL pension from the government and as I still work get all my money from my employment. I think not the thieving politician mongrels. What would centrelink do if I demanded what he has....I would be turfed out on my butt. Politicians are all bludgers.
    particolor
    21st Oct 2016
    4:27pm
    Hear ! Hear !!
    TREBOR
    21st Oct 2016
    5:02pm
    Lord Foxy of The Hunt? Tally-Ho - to the hunt.....
    PIXAPD
    21st Oct 2016
    4:33pm
    Quick everyone, change your name title to Envoy, go and work and keep the pension also
    particolor
    21st Oct 2016
    4:42pm
    I want an Ambassadors job :-) AND MY PENSION :-) :-)
    Missskinnylegs
    21st Oct 2016
    5:04pm
    why isnt my previous job still paying me - because I quit! so no other pollie should get anything when they quit politics, no ongoing pension or perks - I've had enough! I got a measly $5 a week pay rise in my hand after tax and Centrelink knocking off $20 a week from my rental allowance - thanks for nothing!
    Pamiea
    21st Oct 2016
    5:27pm
    GREEDY PIG! WHAT MORE CAN ONE SAY.
    Crimmo
    21st Oct 2016
    5:28pm
    The 'age of entitlement' never ended for politicians. And they say we have budget problems. What a load of bullshit. Lets spend $160 million and ask the people if queers can marry. Budget problems!! What a load of bullshit.
    Rodent
    21st Oct 2016
    5:52pm
    Some light weekend reading for all INTERESTED parties

    • There is now no doubt about who runs Australia’s economy better. Econometrics expert Alan Austin updates the data.

    WE NOW have almost three years of outcomes to assess the Coalition’s managerial performance — first under PM Tony Abbott and Treasurer Joe Hockey, then under Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison.
    The conclusions are stark. When last in Opposition, the Coalition identified 24 areas of economic management as critical and promised to improve them all. Since gaining office, one has improved, one has remained steady and 22 have deteriorated.
    With a strong recovery well underway worldwide, Australia’s once impressive global ranking has fallen on all 24.
    The Coalition Government’s only success is that, with the connivance of the mainstream media, it appears to have fooled many Australians into believing the opposite of the truth.
    1. Jobs
    Over the Coalition’s last 24 months, the jobless rate fluctuated between 5.6% and 6.3%. This is higher than Labor’s equivalent range between 5.0% and 5.8%. Hidden, however, is the fact that many full-time workers have been made part-timers. Hours worked per adult have dropped dramatically.
    2. Budget deficits
    In his 2014 budget speech, Joe Hockey forecast deficits totalling $30.5 billion for the three financial years from 2015-16 to 2017-18.
    The updated figures in last month’s final budget outcome are now $102.8 billion. That is a blow-out of 337% — in two years. Those are all Coalition numbers.
    3. Government net debt
    Labor left net debt in 2013 of $178.1 billion — an amount the Coalition promised to reduce by $30 billion. By the end of June 2016, it had ballooned by $118.3 billion – or 66% – to $296.4 billion.
    4. Government gross debt
    Labor left gross debt (the amount upon which interest must be paid) of $277.4 billion. This week’snumber is $443.2 billion — up by $165.8 billion (or 64.4%).
    5. Interest on government debt
    Labor paid $8,285 million in net interest in its last financial year, 2012-13. The Coalition paid$12,041 million in the year just ended — an increase of 45.3%.
    6. National income
    Real net disposable income grew an average of 2.8% per year through the Labor years, which included the global financial crisis (GFC). Under the Coalition, income has fallen by more than two thirds to a miserable 0.87% annual growth.
    7. Balance of trade
    For a record 18 months, Australia’s trade deficit has been worse than $1,600 million. For ten months, it was below $3,000 million and, in one disastrous month, crashed to $4,142 million.
    As shown elsewhere, this is close to world’s worst.
    8. Wage levels
    Wages are now growing at their slowest pace since records were kept. For the last three quarters, increases have been stuck at 0.5%, a level only recorded seven times since the Hawke/Keating period. Once was during the GFC in 2009, the other six since the Coalition was elected.
    9. Job participation
    This fluctuated between 64.8 and 65.8 under Labor. It has been below 64.8 for more than half the Coalition period, falling as low as 64.5 for four months. It is now 64.7.
    10. Youth unemployment
    Globally, this has improved remarkably in recent years. In Australia, this ranged between 9% and 16.4% through the Howard years. The Rudd and Gillard Governments reduced this to fluctuate between 7.6% and 12.2%, consistent with global trends. Under the Coalition, this blew out again above 14% for three months and is now 12.8% — against global trends.
    11. Long term unemployment
    Labor kept this low, with 135,100 people unemployed for a year or more at the 2013 election, below 20% of the total jobless. It expanded dramatically after the election to peak at 186,300 in January 2015, or 23.8% of those out of work. It is now 162,300, at 22.8%.
    12. Productivity
    A streak of 17 quarterly rises came to a grinding halt in mid 2015, after two failed Coalition budgets. Two consecutive quarterly slumps were followed by three rises. The next figures will confirm whether productivity is back on track.

    o 13. Interest rates
    Joe Hockey affirmed in 2013 that interest rates below 2.75% indicate poor economic management. That was the day the rate was cut to 2.5% — where it remained until after Labor lost office. Six months after the election, it fell to 2.25%, was cut again to 2% in May 2015, then to 1.75% a year later. It was slashed last August to 1.50%, Australia’s lowest level ever. This is disastrous for those whose income depend upon interest from their savings.
    14. Economic growth
    This is one of two areas where the economy has not deteriorated. The growth rate of Australia’s gross domestic product (GDP) in this year’s June quarter was 0.5%. This is below the 0.6% of the June quarter of 2013 and just below the current OECD average.
    The annualised growth rate, now at 3.3%, is considered satisfactory. While it is above the 2.0% three years ago, it remains well below the 4.4% at the beginning of 2012.
    15. Company profits
    This is the one positive in Australia’s economy. According to Commsec’s analysis of 2016 company reports, 88.5% of companies – all but 16 – recorded a profit, aggregate profits (excluding the aberrant BHP result) rose by 6.8%, dividends rose by 6.0% over the year, 92.1% of companies paid a dividend and 65.6% lifted dividends.
    16. Increased taxes
    Taxes collected from companies has dropped dramatically, requiring extra taxes to be collected elsewhere. Overall, tax revenue in the financial year just ended was up more than $34 billion over Labor’s 2012-13 collections to $362.0 billion, an increase of 10.5%.
    17. Construction activity
    The value of non-residential buildings in calendar 2014 fell 15.1% from 2013. The value in 2015 was barely improved, at 13.8% below 2013. The first two quarters of 2016 show no improvement.
    18. Infrastructure development
    The value of public sector engineering construction in calendar 2014 fell 17.0 % from 2013. The value in 2015 was barely improved, at 16.3% below 2013. The first two quarters of 2016 show slight improvement only.
    19. Economic freedom
    Heritage Foundation ranked Australia’s economic freedom through the Labor years third in the entire world. In 2014, Australia’s score fell and the ranking dropped to fourth. In 2015, Australia’s score fell but fourth place remained. In 2016, Australia’s score dropped further and ranking slipped to fifth.
    20. Global competitiveness
    This year’s Global Competitiveness Report now ranks Australia 21st in the world. This is down from 20th in Labor’s last two years.
    21. Business confidence
    The NAB’s monthly index ranged between –9 and +19 during Labor’s last four years. In September 2013, this was a creditable 12. It has never been higher than 10 since and has been as low as 1 several times. The average for the last four months has been just 4.5.
    22. Government spending
    This was $423.3 billion in the year just ended, up by 15.3% over Labor’s 2012-13 outlays of $367.2 billion.
    23. Government waste
    Much of the Coalition’s additional spending in its first year was wasted, as shown here and here. Similar lists could be compiled for the period since.
    24. Smaller government
    Labor’s Commonwealth payments in 2012-13 were 24.1% of GDP. This surged in 2013-14 and 2014-15 to 25.6%. In the last year, it rose further to 25.7% and is budgeted to increase to 25.8% this year.
    This compilation should extinguish any lingering doubt about the Coalition’s incompetence in managing Australia’s economy for all. They have succeeded only in allowing big business to generate huge profits. On every other critical indicator, with the exception of annual GDP growth, they have failed to continue Labor’s gradual progress and global leadership.
    It is fair to conclude that Australia has exchanged one of the best economic management teams in the world for one of the worst.
    Robin Hood
    21st Oct 2016
    6:07pm
    Same old same old... Might be within the guidelines, but is it ethical. Oh, sorry, I forgot ethics and politicians don't usually go together in the same sentence. My mistake I apologise.
    floss
    21st Oct 2016
    6:22pm
    I thought he was the best of a bad bunch but he is just another greedy Liberal party hack.SHAME.
    KSS
    21st Oct 2016
    7:05pm
    Must have been a slow news day eh? So drag out an ex pollie and put him in the stocks for the usual rabble to hurl rotten fruit at.

    For goodness sake people, Mr Ruddock has done nothing wrong. Legal advice was sought and given. Rail against the 'rules' if you must by why so rude to Mr Ruddock who has done nothing wrong.

    ALL (including ALL Labor as well as any other of any hue) the past poliies go from Canberra to the printers with their memoirs, to the speaking circuit here and overseas, to high level executive roles and a plethora of other income earning roles on top of their pensions? So why single out Mr Ruddock? Oh that's right he was from the Liberal Party.
    particolor
    26th Oct 2016
    3:28pm
    I don't think it really matters what Party they are from ! People seem to have had Enough of this Pig Sty Behaviour :-( :-(
    disillusioned
    21st Oct 2016
    7:32pm
    Special envoy for human rights? Pollies' rights more like it!! How come he gets paid all that lolly? He should get one payment or the other. That's why the country's running out of money - pollies' entitlements and pensions!!
    professori_au
    21st Oct 2016
    8:59pm
    I would give him a title. He is a traitor to the people of the Commonwealth of Australia. The real government is the people of the Commonwealth of Australia and parliament and parliament is its servant. MP's were elected to carry out the Wills of the People, yet once elected gave allegiance to a foreign power and for the benefit of themselves and those who supported the. A title? Try Traitor and one like others do not even deserve a pension let alone the privileged superannuation they have granted themselves at the expense of the Australian people.
    Troubadour
    21st Oct 2016
    9:27pm
    Doesn't seem fair at all to me. We basic pensioners have to justify everything.
    His pension itself is ample to live VERY comfortable one.
    We cannot even afford a small holiday!!
    Dot
    21st Oct 2016
    10:08pm
    This is the very reason I say all Politicians are high ace criminals. As a matter of fact
    THE THREE LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT ARE GUILTY OF TREASON, GREED, CORRUPTION, RORTING, ABUSE OF TAX AND RATE PAYERS MONEY AND THE UTLIMATE BETRAYED THOSE WHO SACRIFICIED THEIR LIVES FOR THIS BL--DY COUNTRY.
    professori_au
    22nd Oct 2016
    1:31am
    Hi Dot,

    I don't mean to be rude but why are you letting con you into believing we have three levels of government. Learn your Commonwealth Constitution 1900-1901, the lawful one. In 1974 and 1988 we had a referendum rejecting recognising local government in the Constitution. Why would we want there. It is already there as a department of the state. A department is not a third tier of government. Read up on Anne Toomey, a highly qualified professor of Law and she confirms it as a department. She is brought into the High as a consultant on our laws and is also recognised internationally.
    I have been a student and researcher of our Constitution actively for some 20 years. I spoke one time to 8 students who were debating a point of law and when I told them the answer was in the Constitution their jaws dropped to the floor. I asked them didn't they know we had a constitution. Nooooo. did they know we had a bill of rights. Oh they were positive about that. No we haven't. Sorry we do. It was part of the laws we inherited with the Constitution. The only problem is that it is mixed up in separate parts, so it is not clearly defined. Occasionally it get a mention in the High Court but it seems to me the government does not really want you to know those sorts of thing. We had quite a bit of discussion about it and the students said they were going to get a copy and ask questions of their professors an lecturers. I asked them what were they studying. Law they replied. I question was law??? and you don't know the first Rule of law that is our Constitution? In Victoria we have trading corporations calling themselves councils. They are not government departments, nor are their employees officers of the Crown. They can be charges, sued and or convicted just like you and I. Sorry folks but sometimes I get so frustrated at how successful our politicians posing as lawful government have been at keeping you uninformed and misinformed. Remember the opening Preamble states words along the line as "whereas we the people, etc. come together to create this indissoluble Constitution...... Remember whereas we the people; not the parliament; not any political party or their factions, but we the people and that means all of us. The people are the highest authority and parliament is its servant; not its master as politicians would try and make us believe. They ask you to elect them on the promise of carrying out your will but once elected they give their allegiance to the factions of the party and this is not in the interest of the people.
    Dot
    22nd Oct 2016
    10:36pm
    Three levels of Government are as follows
    FEDERAL-STATE-LOCAL.
    Blondie
    22nd Oct 2016
    1:30am
    " Envoy for Human Rights!" Ruddock??? After Amnesty International asked him to return their lapel badge, because he was considered toxic for human rights! Sick and sad! No amount of money can remove the heartless stench from this soulless individual!
    Get Real
    22nd Oct 2016
    12:58pm
    SO what's new here, just same old, same old!
    Anyone know what's Bronie is up to these days!
    Paul
    particolor
    26th Oct 2016
    3:32pm
    Helicopter Mechanics Adviser to the Luftwaffe I think !!
    Libby
    22nd Oct 2016
    2:34pm
    Most of the pollies don't CARE about ANYBODY but themselves and that's always been the case. Never changes. Always same horses, different riders.
    PIXAPD
    22nd Oct 2016
    3:43pm
    Correct, same trough just different pig noses
    Happily retired early
    22nd Oct 2016
    10:56pm
    The only thing that born to rule attitude Liberals ever were good at is lining their own pockets, double dipping and jobs for the boys then kick working people and pensioners and tell them that they are costing our economy too much, when will the electorate learn?
    MiteMike
    23rd Oct 2016
    10:03am
    My wife wants to know: Why do politicians not get the same type of pension rates as people who have worked hard physical shift work jobs for most of their lives,and then had pension scrutinized and adjusted (DOWN ONLY) because they had a relatively little Super put aside?
    Old Geezer
    24th Oct 2016
    8:44am
    Pollies super is part of their employment package. Those who didn't provide for themselves get what should be called Seniors Welfare Payment as the OAP is a welfare payment designed to stop old people being destitute.
    Julian
    23rd Oct 2016
    9:04pm
    Wong is only complaining because she doesn't receive such benefits. However, if the shoe were on the other foot...

    Just like any other retiree, additional income should be considered and assessed at the marginal rate...but politicians are above the law.
    Alexii
    23rd Oct 2016
    9:44pm
    Grunters!
    disillusioned
    24th Oct 2016
    2:34pm
    "Fair" doesn't apply to this greedy bunch of pollies. I'm disgusted with the lot of them, especially those "double-dippers" like Ruddock and Hockey, who are ripping off us taxpayers. No wonder they're running out of money! Too many of these "entitled" pollies trying to justify their lurks and perks!!
    Big Yin
    24th Oct 2016
    4:43pm
    Well, unlike the many people who out-of-handedly decry Phillip Ruddock, I have to say that I have considerable respect for him and recognise the work he has generally done in Parliament over decades. In saying that, I haven’t, to be honest, agreed with everything he’s done: and, indeed, there have been things he’s done which I abhorrently dislike. No! He’s NOT breaking any laws by taking on his Envoy job and getting a handsome remuneration for it: and, no doubt, regardless of the virtues or scruples that may confront him, the legalities will be used to easily dismiss the moralities of the situation.
    But, if I were to hold such a position I would lose all of my meagre age-pension - and Phillip and I are the same age and I believe I have the capacity, health and wherewithal to do what he’s been selected to do. I just don’t have the political connections he has. On that point, I’m sure there are MANY well-qualified a-political and, in a way, more needy and equally deserving people in the country who could take on such a position and hold on to it for a good number of years into the future.
    I don’t for a moment think Phillip needs the money: he could still enjoy a really nice retirement after his work over all the years.
    Why doesn’t he just do that and let the job go to someone else who will pay taxes and, when the position becomes vacant again, it will then go to someone similar rather than being offered as one that falls unashamedly into the category of “Jobs for the Boys”? Bahhh!
    Jacky
    26th Oct 2016
    3:31pm
    I remember when his wife was shoplifting and got caught. Good pair together.
    particolor
    26th Oct 2016
    4:29pm
    Does anybody else think that if they don't get given a Cushy Job they will Spill the Beans ? :-) :-)


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles
    you might also be interested in...

    Retirement Planning

    When retirement planning becomes life planning it is a challenging, fun and fulfilling task.

    Age pension explained

    Anne explains whether you will qualify for an Age Pension and simplifies some of the more complex scenarios you may encounter dealing with Centrelink.

    Cruising

    Got the travel bug or need a break? Take a look at our latest Seniors travel discounts and deals.

    Meal Ideas

    Be inspired by our easy meal ideas. Search through hundreds of recipes to find the perfect one for any occasion.

    Trivia

    Have some fun and keep your mind active with our Daily Crossword, Trivia, Word Search and Sudoku Games.