our Prime Minister. This will increase her pay packet to more than that of President Obama and and more than double that of the British Prime Minister.
Australia has about a third of the population of the United Kingdom. It is not a world power - although some of our politicians seem to think it is.
Australia is also over-governed. We have local councils (with responsibilities for things like local environmental issues, footpaths, libraries, dog registrations etc) and then state governments (each with a Premier and Cabinet etc etc) and then the federal government with even more of the same.
Our Taxation Act is the biggest and most complex in the world - but that says more about our incompetence than our size. There are also state taxes and federal taxes. Federal laws will over ride state laws but there is plenty of scope for both to exist - and they are not confined to the area of tax.
All this employs a great many people of course - and costs the economy far more than it should.
Perhaps it is all this that allows politicians to believe that they preside over a world power of greater importance and influence than the United States of America?
I am not however aware that our former Prime Ministers require life time protection. One of them still walks alone to the local newsagent to pick up a paper to read the reports about pay rises for his successors. Others may do the same thing. Is this the way a major power treats their former heads of government? Are they no security risk at all?
There are all sorts of arguments offered in support of the pay rise, mostly along the lines of "if you pay peanuts you get monkeys" and suggesting that our politicians work hard. Yes, a few of them do. Prime Ministers do work hard. Their job tenure is uncertain too. It is also argued that they "take on a huge responsibility".
But I know many other people who work just as hard for far less. Their job tenure is no more certain and they also take on a huge responsibility. The arguments on behalf of the "pollies" do not convince me that a pay rise of this magnitude is justified. If there was to be a rise at all then it should have been kept within the CPI.
That way they may be able to afford to pay at least my travel expenses and give me a cup of tea next time they "ask" me to attend a meeting "because it's for the disabled and, if you aren't there, we could have a negative outcome for the clients". Is that too much to ask?