On the other hand, prospective politicians should have to spend some time out in the real world running some sort of business before they become eligible to serve their country.

David

These arguments are foolish; how will influence peddling be less pernicious if it happens in secret, as it would if such a law were passed? Are we better with Tony Blair or Paul Keating openly adding their lustre to a company for money, or Brian Burke secretly furthering the culture of corruption?

It seems to me itself corrupt to deny a person the ability to earn their living honestly using the skills and knowledge they bring with them. Private enterprise is where much, or most, that is good is done, despite the hidden assumption in this article.

Furthermore, public service is potentially MORE corrupt than private enterprise, using as it does the power of statute to change the boundaries of everyone's freedom.

You are dead right there Chris, one only has to look at how the minions in CASA and its homologues have performed in recent years defying the Minister as though he never existed.

David

childish blather. the writer should stick to urging cloudless days and rainy nights. and every cat should have a bell and a travel license issued by the local mouse council.

"Ongoing confidence in our liberal democratic institutions depends on our legislation being free from the perception and reality of conflicts of interest."

How true Adam Creighton. No more does this apply than in the state of Western Australia.

There is no need to reiterate the conflict of interests that have occurred in that state where a former Premier (and gaol-bird) and a Minister has contaminated the due processes of government for years, by setting up business as industry lobbyists.

In addition, the Head of the EPA, until exposed by the Corruption and Crime Commission, had intended to work for the industry lobbyists whilst retaining a senior position at the EPA.

Industry lobbyists should not be permitted to influence environmental assessments for obvious reasons. These assessments are science based to protect the environment not industry.

Therefore, the matter of conflicts of interest do not stop with politicians alone.

Many senior personnel in the Department of Environment in WA have jumped camp to work for Alcoa, deemed one of the planet's greatest polluters. So the senior personnel who once "regulated" a pollutant industry now advises their new masters on how not to "pollute?" Or would that be on how to avoid prosecution? Heh hem!

One is not about depriving past government officals and politicians of a successful career outside government. However, there should be a lag time between resignations and new tenures with past "clients" or corporations, to assist in mitigating a perceived conflict of interest.

I would certainly recommend a mandatory two year lag (minimum) between appointments.

The problem is that governments have their fingers in way too many activities that should be left to the market. Ex politicians can only have influence in those areas in which government is involved. Also there is very little transparency in most governments.
Fix both these areas and most of the problems will disappear.

RobertG

It is the market which has captured compliant or corrupt politicians and senior bureaucrats in their bid to obtain special favours by often sneaking through back doors - doors which are not accessible to ordinary constituents.

Therefore, shouldn't one also question the integrity of the market since the market's desire to covertly influence government decisions has often been to the detriment of the state.

Remember the title of this thread: "Principles before pounds, please."