Paying politicians to attend

the "Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras" is not a good use of tax payer funds in my view.
Yes,  I know that some people will disagree with me but I am of the view that, fun though it may be, the event itself is not "necessary".  Before someone starts screaming I am homophobic let me point out that my very good friend R...agrees. R...is one of the nicest men I know. He also happens to be married to J... another thoroughly nice man. They see no point in the event. My cousin T...., who just happens to be married to his male partner, agrees. Those two have no desire to attend such events. They would rather go to a concert or, because they genuinely do enjoy such things, an art gallery. All four of them see no point in flaunting their sexuality. I know other gay men who feel the same way.  
One of the politicians who attended the event is a lesbian. If she wanted to attend the event that's fine with me. It is her right to do so - as a private citizen. The taxpayer should not be paying for it. As for the politician who claimed for him and his wife to attend the same event "in solidarity", why? It is nice to know they support people with different sexual inclinations but do they need to attend such an event at taxpayer expense?
There are ongoing discussions in our local media at the moment about the away-from-home allowances of members of parliament. Our state is big. It covers a lot of territory. Politicians who represent rural communities do need to be compensated for the additional expenses of coming to the city to attend parliament. The same thing happens with our federal politicians.  It would be impossible for them to represent their electorates if they had to pay for all their own expenses of flights and accommodation and more.
But paying for attendance at an event that has nothing to do with representing their electorate or their state or the country as a whole is another issue. 
I know a number of former politicians. In retirement their use of taxpayer funded assistance has varied. One used it at every opportunity. She went here and there and elsewhere. She joined committees and working parties and admitted to me that what she liked about all this was the travel opportunities it gave her. Another was also called in to do similar things. She saw it as an opportunity to continue giving something to the community in her "retirement". It was only last year that she thought it was time to stop due to age - long past the time when most people retire. Throughout this she tried to keep her expenses to a minimum. She did not see her work as an excuse to travel. If  it was necessary and she could do a cheap day trip then why stay overnight?  
There was an "independent" politician in this state, now sadly deceased, who commuted by train. He travelled on the same line that I would use to get to the city. Parliament is next door to the main railway station there. Someone pointed me out to him one day (as the person who had written a letter to the editor of the state newspaper). He made his way down the carriage to me - just so he could ask me something. After that we would chat occasionally. He would chat to other people on the train too. 
    "I couldn't do this if I used a car," he once told me, "I learn such a lot this way." 
He never claimed his fares to parliament house - something he could have done. He was re-elected twice in a landslide but died before he finished his last term. It was a sad thing in more than one way because he was that rare thing, a good man who listened to others.
When the travel issue came up recently someone else said to me, "It's a pity they didn't take a leaf out of old B...'s book." 
Had he lived long enough he would not have bothered with any Mardi Gras events and he certainly would not have expected to be paid to attend one. 
Is it time to rethink what we pay politicians to actually do?