Hi again Chris,

Yes and no. Labor figures bagging the HIP would certainly be of relevance. Just need the actual questions and answers – unedited. Do you have them? Don’t think this is asking too much.

No, I have no need to write anything further about the HIP. The work of Stiglitz, Tiffin, Comitatus, the CSIRO and others seems satisfactory.

The fact that you haven’t pointed to any actual research which refutes their findings – as in analysis of rates of death, injury or damage, environmental impact, savings to households, fiscal impact – suggests there isn't any. Correct?

Yes, I read the SMH editorial and associated reportage at the time. The critiques of the SMH’s false assumptions were valid then and still are. Although at least the SMH acknowledges the success overall of the stimulus programs.

Anyway, I’m happy to leave the HIP unless you have further relevant data.

Would like to address the substantive matter in your piece. Again, Chris, it looks like you have reached false conclusions because the basic data is inadequate.

So could you please address the earlier questions:

1. Re: “We do not argue that ministers are any more or less corrupt …”

Why not? During the Howard years 10 ministers were forced to resign for breaches of responsibility and another four clearly should have. Since then, the number is one. (Unless we count Kevin Rudd.)

Can you see how those who look at this objectively conclude there has been a dramatic lessening since 2007?

2. Why did you count Rudd as a forced resignation? He freely chose a leadership challenge knowing in advance he was choosing a career change – either to become PM or backbencher. No?

3. Did you also count Keating in June 1991 as a forced resignation? Did you count the other ministers over the years who retired to the backbench in similar circumstances – unrelated to actual ministerial performance?

Thanks, Chris.

Cheers, AA

Alan, I have learnt a lot from OLO readers, especially from critics.
Sadly I have gained no insight from you.

You seem to have a problem with anyone who disagrees with you. I have never come across anyone so righteous or arrogant in terms of his or her opinion.

I think your attitude speaks for itself. You bag my article, you bag my academic piece published in a leading Aust journal. You bag every Murdoch newspaper as if they do not have good journalists. Surely, between the many of us, we have something useful to say.

Please save your efforts, although I am sure you will have the last word.

I'd like to take a slightly different look at the issue. Much is made of vested financial interests but far less of other motivators which for many people can be a far greater reason to act with bias.

We've had some coverage of Abbott and conflict between his catholic beliefs and his role as health minister in the Howard government but little other coverage is given to the issue. Other than the issue of religion there has been little debate on the role private priorities play n public policy.

Former union bosses as ministers in areas involving Industrial Relations is another area where there would seem to be conflict of interest. Likewise people with a history of gender based advocacy in area's that could create a conflict of interest.

I like the idea of a minister with a strong interest in an area but not so much that they act based on personal interest or belief ahead of fair treatment. I assume that most would claim the ability to put the role ahead of personal bias but am not convinced that strong personal passion are any less a motivator than financial gain.

R0bert

Chris Lewis

Thank you for the discussion I think you made a lot more sense than your opponent.

Alan and his support crew, Sun Flower et la, has a history of pushing the Labor bandwagon while trying to sound neutral, distant and considered.

Thanks KarlX; i do try and be balanced as much as possible.

It is funny in a way; most of the good feedback i have had outside OLO generally comes from centre-right sources, even though I have been a Labor man for most of my life. I think that speaks for itself.

R0bert, i think your idea is excellent and would make a geat study to see just how policy is shaped from the different backgrounds of ministers and so on.

My gut feeling is that most MPs are decent people committed to a common aim defined as the public interest rather than certain interests, but the incidence of bad govt made up of poor MPs is indeed real.

Without going into the intellectual depth of your proposal, which of course would require extensive research and time, i will soon produce a piece for OLO citing the NSW Labor experience in recent decades. I am dumbfounded how a govt can be so poor and i think your question would help explain the dubious practices by many ministers and MPs.

While answers to improve ministerial accountability and performance can seem hard given ongoing scandals and shortcomings, there is no doubt that certain governments do perform better than others.

Sunflower, we also included parlimentary secretaries as ministers. That is how we got ten under the Howard govt. (Short, Gibson, Woods, Prosser, Sharp, Jull, Magauran, Heffernan, Campbell, Santoro).

We also consider any forced resignaiton to be one that results in some form of pressure and call to resign from conflict, although you are right to sugggest that some ministers choose to resign rather than being forced to do so at time.