Records unveil Rudd's $600k travel expenses
Posted
Updated
$600k travel bill: Kevin Rudd in Peru last month (Reuters)
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd spent about $600,000 on overseas travel in his first six months in office.
The parliamentary travel records from the Department of Finance show that Mr Rudd made seven overseas trips between December last year and the end of June this year.
The Opposition has previously attacked Mr Rudd for the amount of overseas travel he has done in his first year, with Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull dubbing him "Kevin 747".
Labor MP Graeme Perrett says Mr Rudd's expenses are justified.
"We've got oversight, independent oversight of these expenditures, I'm sure that everything that is expended by the Prime Minister would be appropriate, and would also reflect one of the hardest-working Prime Ministers Australia's ever had," he said.
Search for news
ABC News Online takes a look at the big stories from 2008.
Comments (130)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
-
Dave:
05 Dec 2008 8:49:28am
Is this article suggesting the expense was not legitimate? What is the point here?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Joel B1:
05 Dec 2008 9:00:37am
I think the point is that's a fairly large amount of money for six months in office.
Perhaps some sort of productivity standards need to be applied. Like, what exactly has Rudd achieved apart from an massive ego trip(s)?
Signed Kyoto, big deal (he could have faxed it), met Bono (lol), etc.
It's all a big joke.Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
G:
05 Dec 2008 9:11:37am
In fact, why do we bother feeding him, hey joel?
I mean, afterall, all we really need to do is to put his brain in a box, and have it issue ideas.
Posts like yours are strange; not only do you not have any clue of the complete lists of things that people do while they visit collegues and counterparts while overseas, you have an implied complete lack of understanding of the usefulness and efficiency of face-to-face discussions, interviews tours etc.
It's all a big joke, indeed, and more so when people pass comment while having a VASTLY imcomplete understanding of the matters at hand.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
coloru:
05 Dec 2008 9:51:39am
while it is a lot of money, I cant see why it wouldnt be expected or justifiable. the man is the leader of our country and we have more global relationships than ever before. I bet the US spends more than a $1M each month on Bush for this travel. It doesnt seem unreasonable to me.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
snarf:
05 Dec 2008 10:54:47am
Let's look at the sort of behaviour produced by the previous PM.
"that our own Kirribilli royal couple had paid $171,000 - including a $10,000 late checkout fee - to spend four nights in the so-called royal suite of a swank Rome hotel."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/18/1058035200830.html
Rudd sleeps in embassy buildings and is up for work at 6 AM. Howard stayed in 40,000 dollar per night rooms and couldn't be bothered vacating on time, incurring an additional 10,000 dollar late fee.
And, Howad used the RAAF like a taxi to commute between Sydney and Canberra. Howard even used the RAAF to take him on a private holiday in Broome.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Yerple:
05 Dec 2008 11:36:27am
They could at least have compared the figure against what John Howard spent on average every 6 months, or what Bush spends each month, etc etc. A poor article from the ABC
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Kad Mann:
05 Dec 2008 9:19:43am
Joel B1 wrote: "Perhaps some sort of productivity standards need to be applied."
What productivity standards do you recommend for the management and maintenance of international relationships and alliances?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Big Yin:
05 Dec 2008 9:26:52am
As to your question, why, if Rudd's swanning around the planet playing foreign minser, do we need Stephen Smith? One of them's getting money under false pretences.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Dessy Cartes:
05 Dec 2008 9:38:37am
Good idea. Let's have our PM stay at home and do everything by phone and fax. He doesn't need to go to in person those silly Heads of Government meetings does he?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Julian:
05 Dec 2008 10:28:23am
Bin Yin
Are you serious? You have no idea what their respective jobs entail. And do you think one man alone can always or necessarily fulfill all or specific requirements?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Joel B1:
05 Dec 2008 9:28:22am
"What productivity standards do you recommend for the management and maintenance of international relationships and alliances?"
Oh, something like an observable outcome. Some sort of measurable effect.
You know, like the rest of us have to do.
Not something like, "we had a face-to-face discussion and went on a lovely tour".
That's what we pay those diplomats for, and all those embassies (especially that very important Vatican Embassy).
Honestly why bother with diplomats if Micro_Manager Rudd's always on the spot.
As for the notion that Rudd in any way helped solve the Global Credit Crisis, don't make me laugh!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Dessy Cartes:
05 Dec 2008 9:40:08am
He's not like the rest of us B1. He's the PM. Do you want him to travel around meeting heads of state in a pair of thongs, a map in one hand and a travel guide in the other?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
darson:
05 Dec 2008 9:51:16am
He is an aussie, ain't he! :)
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Joel B1:
05 Dec 2008 10:05:14am
At least the thongs, travel guide and map would ensure his being noticed. Rather a nice picture actually.
Seriously, my point is that Rudd has done a lot of travel. His input into Global matters is minor (same as John Howard).
And, it's not like there's no local issues to deal with. Gillard as acting PM makes me wish for Rudd back home!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
twobob:
05 Dec 2008 9:47:30am
Both sides have form when it comes to wasting money but jb1 only sees it from one perspective.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Montrose:
05 Dec 2008 11:26:40am
The point of this discussion is what K Rudd spent in the last 6 months - not what his predecessor spent - two different arguments - Howard did spend too much - but not relevant to this article.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Verity:
05 Dec 2008 11:50:09am
It is relevant! Howard cost us an arm and a leg and climbed up on the shoulder of the Americans much to our chagrin.
The point is you have no idea what our Prime Minister does, you just imagine you have. People like you would have him riding a bicycle underwater if that suited you.
Get off your butt and go and spend a day with him, see how long the hours are that he works (including weekends and after hours) then come back and report to us that you would love to have his job.
He is the Prime Minister of our country, representing us overseas and you want him to look like Mickey Mouse by travelling economy and wasting time sitting in airports to catch flights? Oh dear, then you would have more to grizzle about.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Sharon:
05 Dec 2008 9:55:00am
So Joel,
You don't think the new Prime Minister should meet with the world leaders that do business with our country? Even if the purpose of his trip was simply "Hi, I'm Kevin Rudd, Australia's new PM, and am here because I wanted to meet personally the leader of a country that shares so much with my own..." then that powerful message would be enough to my mind. However, we all know he achieves infinitely more than a greeting on his travels, but even an introduction to some of our biggest trading partners is worth the trip.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Joel B1:
05 Dec 2008 10:14:08am
Sure, like Peru.
Can't remember the last time I bought (or sold) anything to Peru...Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Kad Mann:
05 Dec 2008 10:14:41am
Joel B1: "Oh, something like an observable outcome. Some sort of measurable effect."
A $600k travel bill is an observable outcome with some sort of measurable effect, so, your point is what?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jepho:
05 Dec 2008 10:07:21am
Whats wrong with a PHONE CALL? Many first class international holidays could be replaced by a phone call, but thats not as fun.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Julian:
05 Dec 2008 10:25:13am
Kad Mann
Spot on. These populist adherents are incapable not only of independent analysis of such matters, but blind to any glaring logic from the outset - and blind to how the media plays them.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
drew:
05 Dec 2008 9:40:56am
i dont have an issue with the PM or other important ministers heading overseas.
no one can dispute that international relations has become a lot more important in the last 12 months and the PM must travel.
but why do backbenchers need to travel...
what about a govt. funded international travel ban for backbenchers? how much would we save?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Felix:
05 Dec 2008 10:19:07am
More importantly, How many non-value-adding public servants and advisers travelled with him?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Mark:
05 Dec 2008 10:21:52am
Between December 3 last year and September 18 this year, John Howard has spent $403,592.11 of taxpayer funds. According to government figures, Mr Howard spent $192,542.77 staffing including $75,674.90 of travel for himself and $11,374.44 on travel for Mrs Howard. Mr Howard, who is expected to pen his own memoirs as he enjoys his retirement, also ran up facilities and accommodation costs of $124,000.
This is on top of the estimated $250,000 per year pension for life he receives.
How about we apply some productivity standards to these tax-payer funded expenditures?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
snarf:
05 Dec 2008 10:48:33am
How about we show something to compare Rudd's travel costs to.
"the cost during the calendar year 2002 of the overseas travels of the Prime Minister, wife and entourage. Total: $3,551,035.
Then there was the trek through Europe - Germany, Greece, Italy, Belgium and France - in the first fortnight of July. That was the trip that got all the publicity a few months back after we learnt, at Senate estimates, that our own Kirribilli royal couple had paid $171,000 - including a $10,000 late checkout fee - to spend four nights in the so-called royal suite of a swank Rome hotel."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/18/1058035200830.html
Not to mention the RAAF jet used as a taxi to ferry Howard between Sydney and Canberra because he refused to live at the Lodge.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
unfoiled:
05 Dec 2008 11:03:49am
OK now include ALL the expenses for the current PM. The article only includes the first 6 months, sock it to us. The real facts, including how much personal business was done by Ms Rein also.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
unfoiled:
05 Dec 2008 11:42:40am
2002, after 9/11......probally justified. How quickly we forget.
In the first 6 months of this govt. they didnt even know we had a global finacial problem so what was their excuse for the travel?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
unfoiled:
05 Dec 2008 10:52:33am
And what about all the other 'has been PMs', how much do they cost this country?
Least John Howard stuck it out most of his life and would have still been there if elected.
See... its all the fault of you labor voters.......Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Felix:
05 Dec 2008 11:23:21am
Are taxpayers only supporting one former PM Mark or is Howard just an easy target?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
dazza:
05 Dec 2008 11:41:03am
How about we apply this concept to ALL former PMs? In fact, do away with these perks. They did their time and left the job, be it in good or bad circumstances. Rudd travels, as did his predecessors, because of his position. I am no Labor supporter, yet I CAN see the value in the visits - they achieve a lot, even if only by "Dropping By" for a quick chat. However, I am tired of seeing tax payer dollars support Keating, Hawke, Fraser, Whitlam et al, who are still sucking money out of the coffers.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Brad:
05 Dec 2008 10:42:20am
Howard spent $1 million on travel in his last year in office and fuel went up a bit in 2009.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
unfoiled:
05 Dec 2008 10:54:21am
2009........Jumping the gun there Brad......or did I miss a year
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Jeff:
05 Dec 2008 10:57:31am
Joel, the productivity gained would be an insight into the GFC, thus allowing an immediate and appropriate response therefore ensuring that the crisis had a minimal impact on our economy.
He shored up our strong trade ties with China and other trading nations, furhter cushioning us from the GFC.
$600k in 6 months. When we ride out this global recession with 'relative' ease, this will seem like a very small proce to pay.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Remark:
05 Dec 2008 9:03:07am
Everyone knows from their own experience that travel is not exactly cheap these days.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Julian:
05 Dec 2008 10:11:22am
Dave
You are exactly right. What is the point? The point is, that this is another media beat up - another non-story.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pete:
05 Dec 2008 10:21:39am
I agree with Dave. These kind of stories are an attempt to make a slow news day look a little more interesting.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
TeddyC:
05 Dec 2008 10:47:28am
Shame on you ABC for running this supposed 'news' item but thank crikey whoever writes your headlines hasn't given the whingers a guernsey otherwise it would be 'Opposition demand answers on Rudd's travel rort'.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Jimbo:
05 Dec 2008 10:40:36am
It's called video conferencing, mate. If our (supposedly) 21-st century PM wanted to be known for using funds prudently, he could have slashed tax payers bill in half by not flying around so much.
But it doesn't matter anyway. He allowed $10 billion to be spent on alcohol, drugs, pokies, Xmas presents and other rubbish, so $600k in travel expenses doesn't really mean much.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Heath:
05 Dec 2008 10:42:05am
This is a shoddy article by the ABC. No historical perspective is applied, not a single peice of analysis is given, just a money value, a snipe from the opposition and a rather theoretical defence from a backbencher. Was this just a medium half of us can rip on the PM for wasting money and the other half can defend him?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Boggs:
05 Dec 2008 8:50:06am
So what?
For a new Head of State establishing contacts with his peers that doesnt sound unreasonable.
I suppose the Zealots would prefer he travelled on Jetstar and stayed in backpackers.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
JWatGW:
05 Dec 2008 9:41:28am
Sorry. K Rudd is not Head of State.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
davo:
05 Dec 2008 10:53:45am
Agreed that he is not the head of state, but he is the head of the elected government. You are just splitting hairs.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Felix:
05 Dec 2008 11:25:29am
Actually he's pointing out an obvious error. You lefty tree huggers don't like being proven to be wrong do you?
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
-
-
-
Mick:
05 Dec 2008 8:51:40am
Whats the average amount for the same time period?
Whilst He has been travelling allot, I dont think its been excessive given the circumstancesAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
pseudomys:
05 Dec 2008 8:56:38am
agreed.
besides, didn't we spend $400k + on the Howards this year??Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Barry:
05 Dec 2008 9:03:01am
Don't forget how much we also spent on the Hawkes, the Keatings and the Whitlams.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
medialuvsrudd:
05 Dec 2008 9:11:12am
dont you love it how they seem to forget about mentioning the former Labor PM in there critiscism ????
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Somewhat Perplexed:
05 Dec 2008 9:12:30am
Exactly.
This is why I think they should be paid more as a salary and the ongoing perks (including guaranteed superannuation) should be removed.
Also, that 600K is going to pale into insignificance when it comes time to fund that government information adds that seem to appear around election time.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Remark:
05 Dec 2008 9:53:59am
"pale into insignificance when it comes time to fund that government information adds that seem to appear around election time"
--
Sounds like you might be getting this government's motives confused with the Liberals when they were in office.
Honest John's government was one of the world's highest per-capita spenders on propaganda. Kevin Rudd, conscious of the public outcry arising from the Liberal abuse, has put in place strict restrictions on government advertising. Campaign expenditure over a certain amount must be approved by an independent authority and must not be partisan in nature.
Quite a difference from Howard's world-topping spend over many years on what was effectively advertising for Liberal Party policies. With a hefty amount of fearmongering thrown in, as is the Liberal habit.
http://www.australianpolitics.com/words/2007/archives/00000136.shtmlAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
dragon:
05 Dec 2008 9:11:23am
Plus One !
This reported amount is useless with a benchmark to compare against !
Come On ABC ...................... Lets lift the game !Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
snarf:
05 Dec 2008 11:05:37am
"John Howard, too, was busy overseas last year, you'll remember.Very busy. And, like Trudy Clark and Heather Ruddock, Janette Howard went along as well, also at public cost. You'll likely be a bit stunned to learn what that cost was. That is, the cost during the calendar year 2002 of the overseas travels of the Prime Minister, wife and entourage. Total: $3,551,035. Yes, I blinked, too. For this the Howards went to the United States twice last year - for 10 days in January-February ($1.15 million) that included Singapore and Indonesia, and a week in June ($467,480). They also went to Britain twice, in March and April (total cost: $323,730), which included the Queen Mother's funeral.
Then there was the trek through Europe - Germany, Greece, Italy, Belgium and France - in the first fortnight of July. That was the trip that got all the publicity a few months back after we learnt, at Senate estimates, that our own Kirribilli royal couple had paid $171,000 - including a $10,000 late checkout fee - to spend four nights in the so-called royal suite of a swank Rome hotel. Those two weeks in Europe ended up costing Australian taxpayers a tick over a million dollars - $1,025,638."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/18/1058035200830.htmlAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
DeepFritz:
05 Dec 2008 9:01:50am
The way he climbs the stairs to board the plane (then the wave that he gives) is worth $600k alone ;)
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Willster:
05 Dec 2008 9:42:02am
Ha, yeah you're right. Unfortunately he's like a boomerang and keeps coming back.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
rosie:
05 Dec 2008 11:48:03am
lol good one :P
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Felix:
05 Dec 2008 10:18:16am
Don't forget the flick of the hair..............
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Dylan:
05 Dec 2008 9:03:16am
Well petrol prices have been high,
What do people expect him to do...WALK overseas,
600k probably more what a PM should be paid,Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
alandee:
05 Dec 2008 9:11:05am
I can't believe I was duped into voting for this bloke.
For a 'leader' that cares so deeply about global warming, it is astounding that he doesn't lead the world in teleconferencing, oh that's right, our broadband is sub par. Seriously, all I wanted was a little honesty and focus.
I don't care if you're running a country, that is an extortionate amount of money to spend on travel.... oh, wait.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
J:
05 Dec 2008 9:34:11am
Yes,
teleconferencing would surely be the way for PM Rudd to do lots of business.
And when he does travel overseas ie to the US why can't he stay at the White House and have a reciprcol arrangement to accommodate US & other foreign leaders at The Lodge at no charge.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jake:
05 Dec 2008 9:54:06am
Yeah, something like "Hey when you come to visit you can crash on the couch, it folds out. Oh wait, I'd better call you back, my 3 mins of free calls is about to expire. Yeah, I'm doing all this for the electorate."
FFS, I mean c'mon people.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
swamprat:
05 Dec 2008 9:34:58am
alandee,
at least most of Rudd's travel was to confer with world experts on how we can avoid the worst of the world economical meltdown and what can be done about to correct it, the fact he was greeted with respect by those same experts for his opinions was gratifying, Rudd saves us mega bucks on hotel bills by staying with our ambassadors wherever he goes, it's a dammed sight different to Howard's little sorays that always seemed to coincide with world class tennis or cricket matches and his and Jeanette's penchant to take over the presidents suite in five star hotels, they certainly didnt stint themselves in using the public purse.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Felix:
05 Dec 2008 11:27:59am
World experts? It was they and their political puppet masters that led us into this mess.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Dessy Cartes:
05 Dec 2008 9:43:31am
Good show, give him a backpack and a phone card, that should do it.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Felix:
05 Dec 2008 11:26:50am
At least you've got the guts to admit it.........and hopefully learn by it! ;-)
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Verity:
05 Dec 2008 11:55:03am
You want to thank your lucky stars you were "duped" into voting for this bloke. Look at the Opposition? What a mob of fools and idiots they have turned out to be. Completely in disarray, not a leader in sight and waffling on about everything they can to get their name in the newspapers.
Alandee......you should be very thankful.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
unfoiled:
05 Dec 2008 9:15:37am
His supporters would expect him to walk on water but they wont admit it in this forum!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Michael:
05 Dec 2008 9:04:06am
Extremely poor reporting. This story should have carried (a) comparisons with previous PM's (b) destinations and (c) some comment concerning the period covered - for example, financial meltdown.
Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
unfoiled:
05 Dec 2008 9:11:34am
Also, how many people went with him, who went with him and why?
Where did they stay, was that the total cost or only the air fares?
How much extra was spent?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ishmael:
05 Dec 2008 9:16:56am
You are right - this to me appears merely mischievous. In any event, how on earth do you or I adjudicate what travel is valid and what isn't? At least it is all there on record, nothing has been concealed nor indeed could it have been.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Somewhat Perplexed:
05 Dec 2008 9:36:44am
Well put Michael.
For journalists, is there something about who, why, when, what, where, how?
I picked up the who and the what but missed the rest.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Flynn:
05 Dec 2008 10:26:36am
Spot on.
Come on ABC, we expect better.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gilligan:
05 Dec 2008 11:16:33am
Politicians usually have to write a report to Parliament as to where they went and why; for the PM I don't object to the travel as such but he should do a formal report through his department, to be tabled in parliament.
I would think that each MP should report on who went, their role, object and expectations of the trip; achievement (or otherwise) of the trip.
Do we care to compare with other PM's? Not really, different times different needs different objectives, 14 trips to Hawaii would be suss, 4 trips to London or Washington probably necessary.
Thats nothing more or less than we use in private industry.
If nothing else if he got hit by the proverbial bus someone needs to know the state of play.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Pen Pal:
05 Dec 2008 9:07:57am
I don't mind about the money spent on Mr Rudd provided there is no criticism when the Coalition does the same thing after 2010.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Remark:
05 Dec 2008 9:22:09am
The travel costs of an Opposition are generally less.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pen Pal:
05 Dec 2008 9:36:30am
Good morning Remark - you're missing my point - I'm talking about when the Opposition slips across to the Treasury benches after the election due in 2010.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Remark:
05 Dec 2008 9:58:20am
Pen Pal, you're speaking wishfully. Governments tend to have around a 10-year cycle. The Liberals just had almost 12 years. Can't be greedy you know!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Heath:
05 Dec 2008 10:48:26am
"governments tend to have a ten year cycle''
huh? is this the kind of statistical analysis you consider accurate?
please explain yourself so i still know to take you liberals seriously
ten year cycle.... your crazy mateAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Remark:
05 Dec 2008 11:04:00am
"governments tend to have a ten year cycle''
huh? is this the kind of statistical analysis you consider accurate?
please explain yourself
---
Ok, let's go back a few governments.
Howard 12 years
Hawke-Keating 13 years
Fraser - 8 years
Whitlam 3 years
Total 36 years.
Divided by the four sets of government averages out at nine years each.
PS: I did say ~around~ 10 years, please quote accurately.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Somewhat Perplexed:
05 Dec 2008 11:34:52am
If you get back to Menzies then your 9 year average might be conservative.
All that aside, we do seem to give the government a go for at least two terms then we start to dislike what we see enough to start thinking about a change.
I would be massively supprised if our current government turns out ot be a one term wonder. I just do not see the oppostion being that strong at present.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Mark Slater:
05 Dec 2008 10:11:53am
The only place the Opposition will be slipping into any time in 2010 is into chaos!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Aja:
05 Dec 2008 11:56:28am
They are there already, no need to wait for 2010.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
PassTheButter:
05 Dec 2008 9:30:43am
No way! $600K is far too much to spend on travel for the opposition :)
(There you go, you got a bite. Happy?)Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Dessy Cartes:
05 Dec 2008 9:44:28am
The coalition will be in opposition still so it's hardly relevant.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jake:
05 Dec 2008 9:56:38am
What, you mean that's when the coalition will begin to start travelling? Woah, slow down a bit there!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Ivan:
05 Dec 2008 9:08:44am
What was the cost of howards 1st 6 months for travel including travel between canberra and sydney because his wife refused to live in canberra .
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
unfoiled:
05 Dec 2008 9:28:46am
Didnt Mrs Howard have cancer? Maybe she needed to be closer to treatment.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pravda:
05 Dec 2008 9:47:16am
I think you will find that they have oncologists and quite good hospitals in Canberra.
\
What was the reason for the Howards living at Kirribilli House for the other 10 and a half years?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
wmc:
05 Dec 2008 10:05:53am
It's a fair point. Besides, the real cost associated with Rudd's prime ministership will be in terms of jobs lost because of Labor's IR legislation.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Gadget:
05 Dec 2008 10:03:45am
Not when Howard first became PM.
Don't forget about the additional cost of Security at Kirribilli House as well, and then of course the extra cost of renting several floors of some posh Hotel for the Queen when she came to visit because Kirribilli House was no longer available.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
michael:
05 Dec 2008 9:08:55am
Maybe the government could buy Qantas to fly him around. Then we could write it off as a business expense.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
meandjoe:
05 Dec 2008 9:09:19am
I love Labor hacks.
John Howard was accused of spending too much everytime he left his office!but dear leader Kevin747 is exempt!
If you labor hacks can honestly say that there is not hypocrisy here i will join Joe and walk around sydney naked.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Joel B1:
05 Dec 2008 9:15:19am
I love Labor hacks too!
Talking about hypocrisy, isn't Rudd always banging on about Climate Change and Carbon? I shudder to think of the CO2 he's personally responsible for!
Try telephoning, Rudd, maybe write a letter heh?
Teleconferencing anyone?
What a joke on the Australian people...Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Dessy Cartes:
05 Dec 2008 9:46:42am
And don't i love coalition hacks. Can't win the election so i suppose you need something to whinge about. What about little bomber johnny's 400k travel expenses? Anything to say about that?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Barry:
05 Dec 2008 10:26:01am
Yep - see above. You forgot the Hawkes, the Keatings and the Whitlams. Have you forgotten them?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Jake:
05 Dec 2008 10:02:47am
yeah, teleconferencing is really going to work.
"Ok, here today at the APEC summit in Peru with all the world's leaders gatehred here, and we have Kevin Rudd on the line everyone! Here, I'll put him on speaker phone for you to hear his comments"Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Joe:
05 Dec 2008 9:09:43am
It always fascinates me when the media reports on these expenditures by Governments and somehow attempts to give the impression that there is something corrupt and excessive about these costs. Can the media be more transparent when reporting these expenditures and identify what the extra costs were over and above those that the taxpayer would have paid if the travel wasn't undertaken. That is, I am assuming that we pay for the aircraft, the salaries and wages of the staff etc. regardless of whether they travel or not. Give us a figure that we can use to make a more informed judgement about the efficacy of the travel in the interests of genuine accountability
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Major Whoosy:
05 Dec 2008 9:21:15am
I think that he hasn't travelled enough.
I'm sure that he can set the benchmark with all movers and shakers worldwide to create a better process improvement with all nations.
It's quite obvious that Kevin is trying to provide a win win situation to ramp up our skill sets going forward. By doing this it creates quality driven nations that can fast track knock on effects.
Keep on truckin' Kevin.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gadget:
05 Dec 2008 9:37:58am
What travel, would you have him not taken in that 6 Month period? The opposition complained he didn't go to Japan when he did his first trip. That would have added to the $600k.
Lets not forget all Johnny "Cricket Tragic"'s regular trip to Britain, that just co-incedently happened to co-incide with 5 day Tests at Lourds. And how he ahppened to be available for every day of play, even when there were delays due to rain.
This article seems to demonstrate that it helps to have Liberal Party stalwarts appointed to the ABC Board.
What a non "News" story.
-