Should taxpayers pay for prime ministers… forever?

Bruce Graham writes: Not only do I have no problem with any of the expenses you have detailed, I think that they (yes, all of the former PMs) are, in their own ways, an asset.

One thing I do have an issue with is former pollies trading off their contacts when they leave office, and possibly aligning their political actions with the preferences of a potential future employer. Say what you like about ideals of ethics, but one certain way to get a government minister to go jobbing after they leave office is to leave them with no other source of income.

So: give them a good pension. Give them a nice office. Give them travel, and cars and all the trappings of being somebody important. Show generosity of public spirit to those who have — whatever their faults — contributed. It is, if nothing else, a statement of what sort of country we are.

But ban them from working in anything remotely associated with government policy. Which pretty much means ban them from working, because few of them have any other skills. All of them will feel the need to give opinion on the acts of their successors. Good. Whatever their faults, they all have sat in the chair. They are entitled to an opinion, and it will occasionally be worth listening to. It goes a small way to helping them lose their job gracefully. It adds to public discourse, and it helps keep them out of mischief.

Geoff Sims writes: Like all other taxpayers, they should be entitled to their superannuation (which is way over the top) and that’s it. Once they retire from politics, they can live off their super like everybody else and all the perks they took when in government should cease.

There is no justification for office rent, staff, communication, travel and all the other things normal people can’t get to be paid for by these people.

Yes, they served the community, hopefully honestly and diligently (questionable for some), but so do other occupations like the military, police, doctors, nurses and paramedics. Why should politicians be different?

Disgusting leeches, ripping off the community after they’ve retired.

Patricia Nordenu writes: If they had to pay for these entitlements out of their own purse, it would be much smaller offices, fewer staff, less travel.

Do any of these people know how much a litre of petrol costs? Another interesting point is how big the expenditures of the Liberals are compared to Labor, and in particular, Julia Gillard’s expenditure. Women are much better managers of the purse.

DF writes: I’d pay Abbott another $100k just to shut up.

Eric H writes: I too am a former ABC program maker and manager — Canberra’s first This Day Tonight (TDT) reporter and later TDT executive producer in Queensland and SA, as well as WA program director and occasionally keeping warm the chair of the federal director of TV current affairs. I agree with Ian’s comments about the current poor state of ABC management at all levels (I came well before Ian and never worked with him, so I can claim a fair degree of impartiality with regard to his views).

Unfortunately, the decline in management standards has had a similar downgrading effect on all on-air operations. It ranges from the almost continuous use of a long-held and completely discredited form of interviewing — the “leading question” — that not only seeks to put words in the mouth of guests, but also creates a perception of partiality on the part of the questioner. But management does nothing about it, despite the fact that its overuse enables guests (politicians especially) to predict the questions’ thrusts and easily avoid providing relevant answers. But that’s only part of it.

The whole structure of interviewing techniques needs reviewing, as does presentation, voice quality (to demonstrate, especially in news-reading, authority and credibility), to say nothing of poor diction and pronunciation sloppiness across the board.

And it doesn’t stop with journalism-based programs. The whole ABC program rationale needs a thorough review — but by an independent panel, skilled and experienced in what the ABC is supposed to be about. The current dismal quality of so-called comedy and a lack of stimulating and thoughtful drama writing and production need urgent attention.

And finally, even a keen examination of technical aspects such as a commercial-inspired overuse of overlay material, which is often distracting, repetitive and hard to read (poor colour distinction and too-brief graphics on guest name tags and titles).

All these problems came about because several MDs ago, it was thought the best way forward was to “popularise” the ABC by making the national broadcaster sound and look like the commercials. But that’s another story of ABC board and management failure that the current commercially trained chair and MD have failed to address.

Vicki writes: All they had to do was follow their own policies and procedures and the EBA. I can’t work out how these guys got jobs if they don’t know what their role is. And no right of reply for Lattouf? Even those charged with the most egregious crimes have a right of reply.