I agree, but I also believe they should be thinking about what the public don't want. Speaking only for myself, I list a small number of things I feel are not up to my expectations:

One politician forcefully stated the age of entitlements was over and there was to be no more double dipping. He retired from parliament, took early taxpayer funded superannuation and took up a taxpayer funded ambassadorial allowance as ambassador to Washington. I see this as double dipping and exercising entitlements.

It has been reported that 96 per cent of politicians are ‘aggressive’ property investors, with one senator owning 33 properties and one using travel allowances to visit potential purchases in Queensland.

Individual politicians and political parties have accepted donations from overseas.  It is reasonable to believe if a person of wealth donates to an organisation or individual in a position of power, it would be done with expectation of returned favour.

Our government has embarked on a path of eliminating penalty rates from Australian workers, many of whom already have trouble making ends meet. The parliamentarians did this at a time when they voted themselves a two per cent pay rise, along with a tax cut.

A state politician was found guilty of giving a mate a lucrative mining licence.

It is reported one politician moved an entire department to his own electorate into an area favouring a wealthy mate who responded in kind with free accommodation.

In the examples above I see hypocrisy, conflict of interest, rorting, the potential for bribery, double standards and criminality.

Our politicians are elected to form our laws, reform our taxes, control overseas ownership of our assets and introduce ways of improving housing affordability.  

How can we trust that various bills and legislation are debated honestly when apparently, the above are the values held within our parliaments?

Bill Young, Goulburn