lest our leaders think they can feed the cash cow to their mates perpetually...see the search term...odious debt
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=gd&q=odious+debt&hl=en-GB&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB

If a despotic power incurs a debt not for the needs or in the interest of the State, but to strengthen its despotic regime, to repress the population that fights against it, etc., this debt is odious for the population of all the State.

This debt is not an obligation for the nation; it is a regime's debt, a personal debt of the power that has incurred it, consequently it falls with the fall of this power.

The reason these "odious" debts cannot be considered to encumber the territory of the State, is that such debts do not fulfill one of the conditions that determine the legality of the debts of the State, that is: the debts of the State must be incurred and the funds from it employed for the needs and in the interests of the State.

"Odious" debts, incurred and used for ends which, to the knowledge of the creditors, are contrary to the interests of the nation, do not compromise the latter — in the case that the nation succeeds in getting rid of the government which incurs them — except to the extent that real advantages were obtained from these debts. The creditors have committed a hostile act with regard to the people; they can't therefore expect that a nation freed from a despotic power assume the "odious" debts, which are personal debts of that power

Rehctub:

Maybe that liability *should* exist.
Maybe that insurance should not be cheap.

My cardiologist, my accountant, my colleagues in science, etc do their professional best. I believe their insurers do too, hence they get agreeable rates, plus the promise that their professional best will be investigated in event of mishap.

I have no such certainty about idealogues in office, and neither should insurers.

Rusty

It's certainly an interesting thought, rehctub.

But the very nature of insurance is to "spread the load" across a broader community. Apart from those who make a living out of it - the salespeople, administrators, executives etc. - it is a zero sum game.

Let's say, for example, that Peter Garrett was held accountable for batt-gate.

Let's say that the compensation payments were in the region of a billion dollars. Bearing in mind the compensation payments to the relatives of the unfortunate victims, the cost of checking every single installation, the cost of reinstallation, plus the recompense for the installers whose livelihoods have been affected by the scheme's closure, lawyers' fees etc., this wouldn't be an unreasonable sum.

Before a typical insurance company could be in a position to pay out that amount, they would have to collect around $1.25bn in premiums (to cover operational costs).

Obviously, this money has to come from the taxpayer - so in a fully insured politician's world, it'd cost every man woman and child in Australia $50, just for that one instance.

Actually, that's only the tip of the iceberg.

Commercial firms can be denied insurance if they are bad risks. Therefore, they make every effort to put in place the governance that minimizes risk of cocking up.

What would happen in government is less certain. If insurance is required to cover their actions, whether at the ministerial, departmental or individual level, what possible incentive could there be for them to do even a passably competent job, let alone prevent them from giving free rein to their propensity for negligence?

It is a thought, as Poirot might say, quite terrifying.

The first step towards getting the public service to perform adequately is to allow them to be fired for incompetence.

Unlike today, where they are far more likely to be promoted.

>>The first step towards getting the public service to perform adequately is to allow them to be fired for incompetence.<<

You've nailed it there, Pericles. Although I did once know a PS staff member who got fired for incompetence. But only ever one - it's a rare event.

You would have to broaden the definition a bit as well. More like industry's definition of incompetence which includes people who do nothing (and never take any steps that would prove they were incompetent).

>>Unlike today, where they are far more likely to be promoted.<<

PS staff are more likely to get promoted for handing over a glossy video or nicely-labelled CD than doing anything of substance. The situation is terrible and getting worse, if that's possible. But my favourite was the guy who knocked up a powerpoint demo that purported to show that a data discovery system was working when it barely even existed! He got promoted. Piss in the manager's pocket, who knows even less, and you're already there.