It’s time our Government trimmed the fat

John A Neve says:

07:39am | 06/07/11

Shane,
I’d agree, but on top of both side of politics lacking bottle, they’d need to make a few big changes.
Superanuation; both employer and employee would need to contribute,so as to reduce social security payement.
The taxation intake would also have to be increased to cover those who
can’t or won’t work.
People who have private health cover should be forced to use it, currently, many don’t.

acotrel says:

07:50am | 06/07/11

‘Our leaders need to understand the role of Government is not to give things away and redistribute wealth simply to win votes.’

There is nothing wrong with big government, it’s all jobs!  In the Menzies era, all a public service officer had to do to build an empire was write a good spiel.  The public service grew like topsy.  However you cannot get blood from a stone.  The Menzies era missed a growth opportunity, and was built on a production hangover from WW2!  We can have the mentality that government should be downsized to be compatible with a dwindling industry sector, but it might just be a matter of globalisation forcing us to disappear up our own fundamental orifices?  I suggest we need to rethink the neoliberal ideology!

Tom says:

10:18am | 06/07/11

Bipartisan gutlessness.

@acetrol, Fraser also beat his manly chest and attacked the public service. Like a cancer it grew and Mal, after losing the battle, went onto bigger achievements such as losing his pants.

KH says:

10:25am | 06/07/11

John A - Super - I agree to an extent, but not everyone can afford to put extra in, especially if they have a mortgage and some kids.
Private health cover - again I agree to an extent, however, the situation has to change on the provider side - i.e. no gaps.  If you have just been seriously injured, you will get just as good care in a public hospital, and you won’t be out thousands of dollars which, given you aren’t working for a while, might be beyond your means.  The health cover industry has to cover the whole cost for those with insurance - then you would have these people using the private system instead of public.  I think a large number of us would be happy to forgo stupid things like the ‘naturopath’ and ‘faith healer’ type crap that is part of some of these policies, and cover hospital care completely.

You forgot middle class welfare - it really shits me that people earning over $100K a year can still get handouts.  Its a disgrace.  There is a place we could be reducing cost.  People should learn to live within their means - and if that means learning the hard way, then so be it.  I know one person whose husband earns over $200k per year, has been on overseas holidays every year, have almost paid off their mcmansion, and she is gleeful about the handouts she will get for popping out a kid.  It is really a disgrace.  Meanwhile, elsewhere on this site today, someone caring for their disabled child for 20 years sits on the poverty line with virtually no support and wants to die because they are so miserable.  How anyone can think this is all OK is beyond me.

acotrel says:

11:13am | 06/07/11

@Tom
’ Mal, after losing the battle, went onto bigger achievements such as losing his pants. ‘
At least it was probably in a good cause!

Bob says:

11:48am | 06/07/11

Hey Shame - I assume you mean Aged Pensions - guess what action has taken place - (1) the qualifying age for females was pused to 65 from 60 some years ago. (2) This current Govt has now pushed it to age 67 (if born before 1957). So subtle nobody noticed. Health and Middle Class welfare are a bigger item.

Mitchell says:

12:23pm | 06/07/11

“Our leaders need to understand the role of Government is not to give things away and redistribute wealth simply to win votes.”
  Good luck with that, governments don’t act in the national interest, they do whatever is necessary to re-elect their “team” and that’s a fact of democracy.
Acotrel - I completely disagree. 
Personally I’d prefer some tax breaks in my pocket to spend at a local small business than having the government go fight wars we have no part being in. If governments worldwide had much less power (ie. money) the world would be a very peaceful place.
To say public spending = creating jobs, is like spending a few million to make a pen that works in zero gravity when you could just use a 10 cent pencil instead! Sure you achieved the same goal but was it money well spent?

Sony B Goode says:

05:21pm | 06/07/11

acotrel : “There is nothing wrong with big government, it’s all jobs!”

bzzt. wrong. thanks for playing. private sector creates wealth which the public sector consumes.

acotrel says:

10:06am | 06/07/11

@Dave Have you looked in a mirror lately?

Mitchell says:

01:43pm | 06/07/11

Let’s blame everyone, that’ll solve everything

grumpy says:

12:59pm | 06/07/11

Spot on Col, I was born in ‘53, and frankly, given the rapidly increasing cost of living, the liklyhood to live for another 30 years, and the superannuation crash,  I have buckleys chance of ever retiring! I’m sure some of our generation are retiring, but its more likely that these are the minority, and the majority don’t see any prospect of retirement in the near future. I would love to wind back to a part time or 4 day week, but no one wants to hire over 50’s, so I’ll just have to slug it out!

Mitchell says:

01:42pm | 06/07/11

Col. and Grumpy, I feel sorry for anyone having to retire soon considering the huge slump in super portfolio’s. If you were only 3 years older you would have been able toget out while the going was good.
But the simple fact is, more people are retiring, you can boast about how you are going to retire when you are 77 instead of the normal 65, but you are an exception. A lot of people will retire, most of them have only had super for a two decades or so and they will end up on the pension eventually, life expectancy is increasing and the bulk of our population is retiring.
At the current rate, by 2050, 1 in 4 people will be over 65. Around 40 years ago the unemployment rate was around 3%, in 40 years time 25% of the population will be over retirement age, unemployment will be massive.
Such a profound change means we need either huge increases in immigration (will the voting boomers like that?) or huge increases in taxation on the younger generation to fund the massive cost blowouts in healthcare.

Chrissy says:

08:52pm | 07/07/11

Dear Grumpy.

Depressing, isn’t it. Now, imagine being 30 and knowing that if you’re healthy enough, you’ll still be working at 75? Knowing that you can’t get a job outside of a metro area, but you can never afford to buy a unit within it (because all the work you can get pays sweet bugger all, and is usually contract). Knowing that you can’t afford private health, but if you get sick….

PTom says:

09:15am | 06/07/11

If you want a smaller government you need to look at what three level delivery and change that first. In this country we have 9 Education, Health, Police, Transport and environment departments. There are even council that have overlap in the above areas.

Tubesteak says:

09:52am | 06/07/11

So what would you cut?

The examples given in the article don’t amount to a hill of beans in the real spending.

Essentials such as health, education, public transport, roads, rail, infrastructure, defence either need to remain the same or increased because the private sector won’t fund them unless they can get a significant ROI from them (and in some cases can’t get any). Moreover, the private sector does not cater to everyone and we need a society where everyone can access the basics rather than exclude them from participation in the economy.

So what exactly can be cut that will deliver these great returns?

The other amusing thing about the article was a Liberal pollie basically telling us that the Howard governemnt (of which he was a part) presided over a significant increase in the size of government: the increase in governemnt isn’t all down to Labor.

acotrel says:

10:19am | 06/07/11

@Tubesteak
‘So what would you cut?

The examples given in the article don’t amount to a hill of beans in the real spending.’

They could start by cutting pollies’ perks ?

atthepub says:

11:22am | 06/07/11

What needs addressing, and this is w hat I read in the article, is the greed and megalomania of our governments. Who cares who wrote the article? That’s neither here nor there, all governments are much of a muchness.
What is true is that the way it is run is very much self serving.

As people we should demand some of our power/money back instead of getting drawn into debating the lies served to us by our governments.

We need to get away from the idea that big government makes our lives better. Let’s try the opposite; less government and less tax. Hear hear.

Tubesteak says:

11:58am | 06/07/11

acotrel
Again, that’s really not cutting much. A haircut doesn’t make a fat man thin.

atthepub
If you want less government then what do you want cut and by how much will it reduce the overall spend?

Not much point saying “less governemnt” unless you can point to the programs and services you woud cut and then quantify the savings.

Mitchell says:

02:01pm | 06/07/11

Tubesteak, there is huge amount of duplication in health,education and emergency services. Good place to start.

If you have a problem you think should be brought up with a housing minister, would you write to your state or federal housing minister? Even if i could specify a certain problem would you even know which one is dealt with by the state or federal government?
  We have 9 housing ministers in one of the richest countries on earth yet across the nation hard working low income families are still forced to live in cars and homelessness is increasing.
Are they actually doing their job?
If there was one housing minister for the whole country, the saved money could be spent on achieving the desired outcomes.
I can go on if you want - 9 education ministers, 9 transport ministers, 9 health ministers - would you say all these ministers (and staff) are value for money considering the state of Australia’s education,transport and health systems?

atthepub says:

02:42pm | 06/07/11

Well Tubesteak, actually that’s not what I get paid for. That’s what our parliamentarians get paid for to run as efficient as possible and we all agree that there is huge room for improvement.

A little while ago I read a piece on abolishment of income tax and simply taxing goods and services a little more (this was before gst) and it made a lot of sense. That in itself would abolish a few government departments right there. But maybe if you reread my post you can see that I asked Dennis, where do we go to bring this about? Cause I dunno, if I did know I would.

Tubesteak says:

03:47pm | 06/07/11

Mitchell
I agree that state governments are useless and have often voiced my solution to this on The Punch.

However, the article is about the size of the Fed governemnt and what can be cut. I would ask the author, and others agreeing, to be more specific as to what programs should be cut and to quantify the cuts.

atthepub
Parliamentarians get paid to abide by the wishes of the people based on election results. If the people want paid maternity leave and childcare then it’s up to government to fund it, for example. You can’t run an efficient and lean government if the people keep voting for more things.

Essentially, telling the government what to do is your job. But there are 10 million voters telling the government what to do so your voice may be drowned out. You should always start with your MP though.

MD says:

08:56am | 06/07/11

Game, set and match.

Tom says:

09:02am | 06/07/11

Disraeli, three simple questions, A and B ... ?

Leaving out your blond moment, just love your slick device for attacking the liberals. You couldn’t fault the author’s objectivity or the logic so you come up with a new sloganistic put down by classifying it as a “disguised partisan rant ...”

Disraeli, if the questions are so SIMPLE, why don’t YOU answer them for us? Too hard for you? Surely a fellow with your education ...?

Disraeli says:

10:42am | 06/07/11

Sloppy, Tom.  I posed three questions.

Jensen is a Liberal MP. Why does he persistently hide it?

On his Budget outlays comparison, two more questions, equally fair.

Jensen is an elected Liberal member,  with plenty of Parliament resources at his beck and call, and a PhD to boot. He’s made a superficial and misleading claim.

The answers aren’t that hard to work out, but its his misleading claim. Up to him to answer fair questions about it.

C’mon Dr Jensen. Speak up! What’s the answer?

Tim says:

10:43am | 06/07/11

Tom,
question one was about him failing to mention he is a liberal member.
Reading fail.

Mahhrat says:

10:50am | 06/07/11

Err, Tom, you go at Disraeli for attacking the man, and then attack them man.  There’s a word for that, it starts with H.

Tom says:

11:50am | 06/07/11

Disraeli, Tim and Mahrat “..., if the questions are so SIMPLE, why don’t YOU answer them for us?” Still waiting ... Still waiting ... ... ... (coooooooeee?)

Tom says:

12:17pm | 06/07/11

Disraeli, Doctor Jensen, put up figures which prima facie showed that the growth in the public service had outstripped other growth indicators. He is not the only one advocating a culling and scrutiny of $s in this area which in turn would lessen the tax burden on Australian workers.

By all means discredit his analysis by coming up with a better one. To rail at the fact that he is a liberal so therefore his analysis is wrong is the height of stupidity.

Until your lot understands that Australian workers are sick of your high taxing and arrogant sense of entitlement to their hard earned money, you will continue to be a ugly mutation of a once great labor movement.

George says:

12:40pm | 06/07/11

@ Tim

Disraeli just exhibited what is symptomatic of all ALP supporters,epic failures.

Their blind spots are so pathetic.

Tim says:

12:57pm | 06/07/11

Tom,
why do you assume that anyone who has a problem with this article is a Labor supporter?
As Disraeli as pointed out, the analysis is incomplete and biased when not compared against other growth factors. Not doing so is a fatal flaw in the argument and takes away from his main point.

As mentioned above, the major increases in the budget have come in health and welfare expenditure. Which government is going to have the balls to cut back middle class welfare or pensions?
I’d love for a party to do it and i’d vote for it, unfortunately both major parties are too confined within their regular vote buying.
Without listing actual cuts they want to make, the article falls completely flat.

Economist says:

01:06pm | 06/07/11

@Tom. GDP in 2001 was around $662B in 2010 its $1.25T that’s an increase of 88% compared with the Commonwealth expenditure increase of 78%. In real terms under Labor the public service has grown about 0.5% over three years, compared with under Howard it grew about 20% in real terms over 7 years from 2000/01 to 2007/08.

I’m all for cuts to the public service, but it has to be done by cutting programs and services. Understand this, government work comes in ebbs and flows. You need people to maintain, programs, services and contracts, and constantly reviewing them for improvements. Plus you need people to gear up for new programs, services and contracts that governments continually announce to appease Australians. As other have highlighted, the Federal public service has about 160,000 employees. State and Local a further 1.1 million. Reducing duplication is the key to genuine improvements. 

As for how efficient the public service is, I’ll give you a clue. When the QLD floods hit this year, Centrelink staff of around 20000 issued around 180,000 disaster relief payment in about 3 weeks to the value of $225M http://www.ag.gov.au/www/ministers/mcclelland.nsf/Page/MediaReleases_2011_FirstQuarter_21January2011-DisasterAssistpaidpasses$225million  Compare that with say how the US handled Katrina. Defence personnel were mobilised and co-ordinated with local SES and Queensland emergency services. Again quite effectively.

The fact is like any organisation, with 160000 employees, you’re going to have your slackers with your good workers.  Don’t be deluded into thinking public servants don’t work unpaid overtime because they do.

The questions Dr Jensen asks should be known by his party via focus groups and lobbyists. Instead of asking those same questions about what we want and how we want to be taxed, why don’t the Liberals actually put forward what they’ll cut. Instead what Jensen’s on about seems to be another 2020 conference on what Australians want. Great. 

As for being fed up with paying taxes for public servants. The service costs just over 5% ($17B) of total government expenditure. Most of the money goes back to you, your family and friends to deliver services. By world standards your not overly taxed (30% of GDP to run three tiers of government). If you honestly think that cutting government services to be delivered by the private sector instead will save you money your dreaming. Many of the services offered by government lack competition so you’d be paying monopoly prices. Instead judge each program, service, and contract on its merit. As a hint, take a look at PC, ANAO, ACCC, Ombudsman and Senate Estimates websites to see where improvements can be made and actually make an effort to understand government, its constraints, its bureaucracy. The fact is Australia is ranked one of the most livable countries in the world, because for the most part government does a pretty good job.

Now what’s the effect of sacking 12000 public servants. Well as most a more than qualified to work in the private sector, your wages will be driven down, assuming you’re a professional. Many a more than qualified to work in the private sector. The fact is a public servant is a real job, they deal with real world problems and with real people. They are simply meeting a labour demand, they are not boggy men and women. They just want to get on with their jobs and go home to their families and friends.

Mitchell says:

01:14pm | 06/07/11

Disraeli - you complain about partisan rants, yet you seem to be the one making the debate partisan. Punch bio’s don’t always show which party the writer is from (though it does state clearly he is a politician and which electorate) and you completely lie about his website.
I am unashamedly biased towards the left wing(read some of my other posts)
Yet I still think Dennis has some good points to make, waste should be abhorred, governments spend money on easy handouts to win votes, over the top compensation for a a carbon tax which is meant to change peoples energy usage (cars now cheaper than trains?), any government which comes after will be slammed for trying to stop these ludicrous handouts, look at Barry O’Farrell in NSW, tried to slightly reduce the overly generous solar scheme, faced a huge backlash from just 100,000 people and due to pressure from his own party backed down. Even the solar industry admits the previous NSW government went too far and gave too much, yet it is virtually impossible to undo the public handouts that people demand.

Tom says:

02:54pm | 06/07/11

Tim, in response to your assertion I just looked at my blogs and nothing in my words stated that you are a Labor Party anything. So Tim, ICB.

However, I am betting you are probably are. It is a dead set give away. Your readiness to critique rather than provide counter arguments. Your eagerness to sweep away an argument because of who the author is rather than what he is saying. Your heroic refusal to put forward the figures that you said were simple. And it seems, if Mitchell is to be believed, a readiness to tell a lie (whatever it takes, eh?).

If it walks like a duck ... All of the above are the hallmarks of party trolls.

I don’t always agree with economist, but his analysis might be worth a look for you and Disraeli and to aspire to so that you could be viewed as something more than lightweight chip on the shoulder trolls.

Tim says:

03:40pm | 06/07/11

Tom,
Umm it was probably when you said:
“Until your lot understands that Australian workers are sick of your high taxing and arrogant sense of entitlement to their hard earned money, you will continue to be a ugly mutation of a once great labor movement. “

You really are struggling with reading aren’t you?

It’s also funny because most of the posts I make on this site usually side with the conservative side of politics. But yeah disagreeing with you must make someone a Labor troll right?

You haven’t provided one point of argument on this blog other than to tell people to answer their own questions and critiques of the author.
As I pointed out:
“the major increases in the budget have come in health and welfare expenditure. Which government is going to have the balls to cut back middle class welfare or pensions?”
You can’t just say we want smaller government without talking about the specific programs, departments or payments you are going to cut.
Saying “we will cut the public service” is just plain disingenuous as the savings would only be small.

Economist has now giving a full answer to the questions posed by Disraeli which completely put paid to the argument posed by Dennis.
Of course the author would have already known these facts before he wrote this article but I suppose he was successful in at least convincing people like you.

Tom says:

04:34pm | 06/07/11

Tim, I accept your suggestion that you are not partisan and agree with cutting middle class welfare. Howard was too cute by halves and I am not sure that the Libs ever contained PS bloat which was a response I half expected to Dr Jensen.

I agree with Gillard’s words on welfare bludgers who avoid work as a lifestyle choice (although no side has ever delivered on their promise to reign in bludgers).

Dr Jensen used a time series to indicate $ growth whereas economist supplied international comparisons on tax levels. Without resorting to unwarranted attacks on economist, this comparison suffers from “apples vs oranges” criticism given that different countries’ governments deliver different things. Howard used international comparisons to bring out lower PAYE tax rates (on the back of stiffing us with a GST), however it was a highly complex analysis.

Economist probably has the ammo to fully analyse it. I am not so sure that every public servant actually adds value (not because they are slackers but because they get put there as window dressing or as a plaything by zealots in government).

Blind Freddy says:

08:47am | 06/07/11

Because lower income people spend a larger proportion of their income on items that attract GST it is a method for shifting the tax burden from the relatively well-off to the less well-off.

More soak-up (as opposed to trickle down) economics from the right. Who’d ‘ve thunk it?

acotrel says:

09:17am | 06/07/11

@Big Jay Be kind to idiots!  The LNP is full of them!  But they’re great economic managers!

Matt says:

10:33am | 06/07/11

The majority of necessity items (such as food, health, and sanitary items) are GST-free. So unless your low income household is going out and buying a lot of luxury items, then their living costs shouldn’t increase dramatically. It is supposed to be revenue neutral, but with more of an emphasis on taxing consumption, rather than our current income tax system in place. Ergo, it is supposed to even out, but make the system simpler, and easier to maintain (hence reducing the overall cost of the system, and at the same time making it more equitable through the simplification of tax legislation).

But if you’re upset about this, then you must be furious about the proposed Carbon Tax!

Matt says:

10:35am | 06/07/11

Also Big Jay, Blind Freddy and acotrel, care to list your economic qualifications to assert that the author has no credibility on the subject?

Big Jay says:

11:45am | 06/07/11

@Matt, you mean spending on luxury items like tampons (I know, im not a woman), electricity/phones/internet/gas, socks/undies (and any other BASIC clothing), tyres, and train tickets to get to work?...FFS most people understand that low-middle income earners spend a higher percentage of said income on consumption, so the GST is regressive. If you’re living bare bones, house, food, health, kind of lifestyle you might find yourself infront, but if you live a normal middle australian lifestyle it will make zero difference either way.

Quals: Commerce Degree, CPA…i know im not the most qualified but you would only have to do high school economics to understand the above quote is a load of bulldust. There are arguments to discourgage consumption and encourage savings/investment from this sort of proposition but this is not the author’s point.

Matt says:

02:05pm | 06/07/11

@Big Jay: B. Comm, CA, and currently finishing a Masters of Taxation here. I would argue that the author is suggesting it is necessary to consider increasing the rate of GST when discussing across-the-board tax reform(which I agree with wholeheartedly). Why then was this specifically excluded from the Henry Tax Review at the direction of the (Labor) government?

I acknowledge that the items you’ve listed currently include GST, but you are taking the position that there will be no changes other than an increase to the rate (nor any transitional arrangements in place) and corresponding decrease in income taxes. Additionally, there would be other flow-on advantages which must be taken into account when analysing this complex area (including the abolition of other inefficient state taxes and reduced costs for businesses). As for calling GST regressive, that is too simple an analysis as well.

Some food for thought for you:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/increase-gst-expert-urges-20100909-1537h.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/push-to-increase-gst-rate/story-e6frg8zx-1225884008218
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/15/2598565.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/taxes-giveth-as-gst-taketh-away/2005/07/08/1120704557532.html

Tubesteak says:

04:10pm | 06/07/11

The cost of many items may not necessarily increase if GST is increased and income tax reduced/abolished.

Because companies are paying lower income taxes their expenses will essentially be lower Therefore, as price competition in the marketplace ensues we’ll see these savings passed on to consumers. Also, other things like removal of payroll tax and other duties should see costs reduced.

Blind Freddy says:

04:17pm | 06/07/11

@Matt

So just to make your argument work, you originally pretended that most everyday items are GST free- but you got called on it by Big Jay. Now, you concede that your original statement was incorrect. Not to worry though, you believe, they might make changes to the exemption mix and not just increase the rate – and what, turn it into a luxury tax instead (I could support that)?

Everyone knows that putting a tax on life’s everyday necessities is regressive. I won’t bore you with my qualifications because they don’t count for anything on this site anyway. I didn’t say the author wasn’t qualified- but he certainly has a political interest.

P.S. The regressive aspects of the CO2 price are to be compensated for- as was some of the regressive nature of the GSTby Howard. The issue here is the proposal to alter the tax mix so that a larger component of it is derived from a regressive method of taxation.

Matt says:

08:23pm | 06/07/11

@Blind Freddy: Perhaps you should actually try and read some of the urls I provided, rather than jumping up and down about regressive taxes. As for your credentials, don’t worry, I’ll assume you have none.

Also, Tubesteak makes an extremely valid point (and one that I was alluding to in my second post). But feel free to ignore it. I have no doubt that you will.

acotrel says:

09:05am | 06/07/11

‘We could have a massive cull, and except for paying huge redundancies for the old timers’

Bunch of old nuisances - take ‘em out the back and shoot ‘em!

acotrel says:

09:09am | 06/07/11

@ Jane2 ‘create a more cost effective and effecient system’

It’d be more efficient if they taught you to spell?

Michael says:

09:33am | 06/07/11

Feeling a bit past your use by date acotrel?

acotrel says:

10:11am | 06/07/11

Public servants that cannot even spell ‘efficient’?  Looking good for the future ! ! - NOT!

Pete says:

10:29am | 06/07/11

@ Jane, you obviously have not been a member of the APS very long,
1/ to increase the GST needs the agreement of all state and territory governments. Picture a labor govt going to liberal state govts, a sure knock back, also the GST does not impact on federal budgets as the proceeds go to the states (theoretically)
2/ redundancies in the public service are not offered to someone who has been there a long time, because they would cost to much individually, far better to give them to people who have not been there long, because the individual payouts would be smaller so you can get rid of more for the same amount.  thats why they are in a mad scramble to keep oldies, because in the next ten or so years, think of the collective knowledge that is going to walk out the door.

Matt says:

10:37am | 06/07/11

Given how the current system operates, it would be nigh-on impossible.

Tim says:

10:47am | 06/07/11

Impossible, not to mention ridiculous.

Mitchell says:

02:22pm | 06/07/11

So if I were to go buy an $1100 tv (with my baby bonus of course) and the guy standing next to me want to buy the same tv but he is told it actually costs him $1200.  I would buy the TV for $1100 then sell it to him for $1150 cash in hand. HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE! $110,000 car means an easy $5000 to the seller and easy $5000 to the buyer. People would just hang around car yards looking for high income earners. Makes no sense at all.

acotrel says:

10:16am | 06/07/11

@Anna C
’ I am sick to death of seeing my taxes being wasted by this inept government.’

Yeah, let’s have another war?

Mitchell says:

03:05pm | 06/07/11

Anna C - If you got all that you desired and we throw out this “inept government”, would you be happy with stopping the baby bonus, first home buyers grant and pension increases once the Liberals were in power?
I really doubt it. All the while taxpayers foot the bill, for previous governments waste.

acotrel says:

10:29am | 06/07/11

@dancan I recently tried to get work lecturing in Project Management at Goulburn Ovens TAFE.  It is scurrently only taught there as one subject in an IT course.  Obviously the academics have never had a real job, and cannot see it is a fundamental issue affecting everything industry and government does!  How is your performance rating going these days?  Are you continually improving and working towards meeting targets with your reduced staff? Buck up sonny!  The sooner you grasp the fact that the system runs on bullshit, the happier you’ll be!  Just learn to play the game!

acotrel says:

11:23am | 06/07/11

A@dancan
Public servant bashing must be ‘de rigeur’ this week?  The same people who blamed Peter Garrett for the pink batts ‘debacle’, are the same ones who want to downsize government.  I would have thought that the nature of the project management involved, would have been a key factor?

dancan says:

01:06pm | 06/07/11

I’d get paid more as well

acotrel says:

01:52pm | 06/07/11

@dancan You’d get paid more, and that’s important!  You are a long time dead, and if you are wasting your time, that’s a crime.  There are better jobs which don’t have the head fvck, in businesses where the owner isn’t an a jerk.  You might even achieve, and find a level of job satisfaction, with appropriate monetary reward.  Most public servants I’ve met are skilled and competent but frustrated by the system - you can do better!

acotrel says:

11:58am | 06/07/11

@Wickerman
’ But what generally should happen get rid of the back office deadwood these are roles like:
equality officers
facilitators/coordinators
change managers (& other ITIL overheads)’

They should sack the front men who employed those sycophants to pad up an empire, and give reason for promotion of a bullshit artist - themselves! Then give their jobs to the hangers -on and make them do some real work!
It’d only need to happence once anywhere!

Mitchell says:

02:39pm | 06/07/11

Right on the money Wickerman, Department of Defence is shocking when it comes to procurement.
They have this idea that they are entitled to unlimited funding and no scrutiny because of “national security.”
The JSF project cost Canadian Prime Minister his job, in Australia you’d be hard pressed to find any news organisation brave enough to mention the waste involved in buying an inferior 5th gen fighter.

Sony B Goode says:

08:18pm | 06/07/11

first peak oil then peak government