The lesson from the new paradigm: less is more

Nigel Catchlove says:

09:33am | 17/09/10

Could you provide a reference please.  I have read the report and can’t see that statement anywhere.

Paragraph 9 of the T h e A u d i t o r - G e n e r a l Audit Report No.33 2009–10 outlines the ANAO’s objectives and makes no reference to value for money.
Paragraph 6.34 states: ‘The extent of these data integrity problems, as at October 2009, coupled with varied approaches to procuring BER P21 construction works across Education Authorities and schools meant that it was not possible to draw reliable conclusions from reported data about actual project expenditure levels or how funding was being used.’

Happy to be corrected - maybe I’m reading the wrong ANAO report?

Adam Diver says:

07:40pm | 17/09/10

@ Nigel, the silence is deafining don’t you think?

Peter Chisholm says:

02:51am | 18/09/10

The reference for this is The Age’s editorial of August 7, which quotes the ANAO report directly:

The thrust of its findings is clear: “Our overall observation is that this Australia-wide program is delivering much-needed infrastructure to school communities while achieving the primary goal of economic activity across the nation. There has clearly also been an added benefit of construction industry up-skilling, beyond just sustaining employment.’’ Value for money was assessed against three criteria - quality (was the building fit for purpose), delivery on time, and cost - and trade-offs between these were inevitable. Some of the 22 education authorities achieved better value for money than others, with gaps between BER and pre-BER costs of 0-12 per cent. ‘‘Overall, delivering BER P21 within the short time frame to achieve the economic stimulus objectives may have added a premium to pre-BER business-as-usual costs of between 5-6 per cent.’’ Authorities that took a ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach have the highest on-time completion rates, notably NSW with 95 per cent (Victoria’s figure is 64 per cent), but paid more and prompted more complaints.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/ber-gets-overall-pass-but-far-from-perfect-20100806-11off.html

Peter Chisholm says:

02:56am | 18/09/10

I believe the quotes are from the independent BER Implementation Taskforce on the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program (P21) - I am unsure if this is one and the same with the ANAO report (they were released around the same time).

‘Our overall observation is that this Australia-wide program is delivering much-needed infrastructure to school communities while achieving the primary goal of economic activity across the nation. There has clearly also been an added benefit of construction industry up-skilling, beyond just sustaining employment.’’ Value for money was assessed against three criteria - quality (was the building fit for purpose), delivery on time, and cost - and trade-offs between these were inevitable. Some of the 22 education authorities achieved better value for money than others, with gaps between BER and pre-BER costs of 0-12 per cent. ‘‘Overall, delivering BER P21 within the short time frame to achieve the economic stimulus objectives may have added a premium to pre-BER business-as-usual costs of between 5-6 per cent.

Nigel Catchlove says:

08:38am | 17/09/10

There may be some truth in what you’re saying but you keep using the past tense when you refer to ‘stimulus’. We are in the midst of another mining boom and the Australian economy is performing strongly but the Government is still spending money to ‘stimulate’ the economy.  Why?  The school halls funding hasn’t all been spent and construction will continue over the next couple of years and that is at the centre of criticism of the stimulus.  Why did we have to commit such massive expenditure to projects over such a long time frame? 

The Liberals were advising caution at the time but Labor just couldn’t help themselves.  Not only did we have too much too soon on the BER but the pink batts scheme as well. The ALP may have its hands on the economy’s levers at the moment but instead of adjusting them with the dexterity of a three year old, they might like to just make small adjustments and measure the consequences before making further moves.

fehowarth says:

09:33am | 17/09/10

Nigel, you could very well be correct in your beliefs.  The fact is if the stimulus still has to run its full course, it does no seem to be doing the economy much harm.  The infrastructure that is being built will bring long-term benefit to the community.

Brendan says:

11:03am | 17/09/10

Taking your grandchildren to a lovely new park which you assume is paid for by a stimulus package - I admit I may have missed that package. The cash for parks package perhaps? Maybe the “funded by the ALP” sign was not big enough? As one in the building industry who has heard the stories of the BER it was a govt shambles in the public sector with funds happily sucked up by “favoured contractors” hand picked by distant public servants for the work! Perhaps an investigation of the selection process and behind the scenes connections would be revealing? In the private sector and at public schools that had active masterplanning in place with panels of local contractors the results have been worthwhile. This tends to back up the hypothesis that Govt working together with community works better than the Govt knows best approach?

Adam Diver says:

09:52am | 17/09/10

Me thinks you have too much free time Acetrol. If you cant make your point in one post try to refrain from distorting the comments.

To counter your arguments,

1. Its not OHS its artificially inflating demand for an industry not equipped for it and then ignoring several warnings.

2. The waste is exstensive, all you need is the examples that have been made public. Getting a review done, with certain restrictions into what can be reviewed is the same as hiring a private company to do your costings.

3. Assylum seekers is not an issue perpetuated solely by the coalition (liberals), otherwise why the sudden shift to the right fro the progresive labor party?

daj says:

01:08pm | 17/09/10

yes, who will the first politician be to honestly state that a carbon price has nothing to do with the changing messages of the alarmists= AGW,CC,MMGW,no rain,species extiction etc= but :-
.UN scam to gain wealth from developed countries.
.Corp free market Globalised opportunists(and local vested interests of all sizes) chasing the mighty $.
.a last ditch effort to create real manufacturing jobs to counter the competition of developing countries.
Forget the science, why do you think the economists/ business have become the main drivers of an ETS- Greens are a throwaway puppet.
Let’s have an honest debate/election based on the “greatest moral challenge”.I’ll accept, and adapt , to the result.

Nigel Catchlove says:

12:15pm | 17/09/10

No Holly, we haven’t ‘all stopped listening’.  Some of you however are content to put your fingers in your ears and tell yourself there is nothing going on.  Whenever a government interferes in a market, there are often unintended (not always unforeseen) consequences and, in an ideal world, the government and the public service take action to mitigate those circumstances - say for example spreading the cash for batts scheme over a three or four year period so that the industry in Australia could cope with the increased workload.  Instead, the government threw everything at the scheme in one go, forcing imports of shoddy insulation because Australian industry couldn’t cope, and providing the perfect environment for unscrupulous operators to cut corners and flaunt their legislative obligations.  They are now being caught and punished for those transgressions but only after numerous house fires and four deaths.  Where the ALP is complicit is that it failed to heed numerous warnings from industry bodies and failed to mitigate the unforseen circumstances that arose when it foolishly interfered in the market.  It’s called risk management and I suspect that people working for the government are aware of it but our Labor parliamentarians chose to obfuscate and ignore the advice they were given in among their spending spree. It matters not if the events were unintended and the government took no action to mitigate them or if they were unforeseen - the government was too slow to act on advice and bears responsibility for the mess they created.

Mike T says:

01:46pm | 17/09/10

@ Holly

“Your parental leave system takes the burden from business and hands it (eventually) to the taxpayer at a cost of over $3 billion per year” I agree, an awful initiative, However, who do you think will be the ultimate payer for the ALP intorduced taxes including the mining tax and the carbon tax

“NBN which will benefit all Australians” in total agreement that all will benefit, but all Australins would also benefit from a brand new car, that dosent make it justifiable for the governemnt to go and buy everyone one. People just think the money could be better spent elsewhere!

  “Criticism of the BER is has well and truly been demolished” Bollocks!! The level of rorts and misuse are clear, despite the ALP funded report

“Why has it always been only the unions pushing for employee safety at work”  A bit rich, seeing the ALP (the unions political arm) sat on information that resulted in house fires and deaths resuting from thier initiative….

AdamC says:

11:13am | 17/09/10

I remember a good Yes, Prime Minister episode where the PM’s party adviser described government departments as ‘gravestones’. For example, the Department of Industry marks the grave of industry. I think it’s quite valid. You don’t need an ‘innovation’ minister if there’s innovation happening out in the market anyway.

daj says:

12:40pm | 17/09/10

classical?more likely a progressive/moderate Turnbull/Hockey supporter.the words individual/personal should not be aligned with free market, and is pleasing that Mirrabella prefers “enterprise”.S.M’s new paradigm talks the talk but to walk the talk the Libs need to shut up for 3 months and work on a common strategy for an obvious alternative then stick to it in a unified manner.inhouse concensus far better than percieved negativity,let the Gov go you’ll get plenty of chances 2011.

Hamish says:

12:53pm | 17/09/10

Daj, as someone with an honours degree in political science, I think I’m pretty qualified to talk about my own political ideology. Classical liberals are not American liberals. Turnbull is an ALP politician in sheep’s clothing and Bailleu (who’s the same pretty much) is an embarassing joke. I think you misinterpreted my comment.

Nicole says:

12:23pm | 17/09/10

You say Sophie parrots? I reckon if I Google parrot, all I’d come up with is ‘nosthow’ ! What happened to ‘mad monk’? Did you completely beat to death the already dead horse?

Mike T says:

02:02pm | 17/09/10

nosthow…..

think back to six months ago. Whatisi it that people wanted from the government?? what were the things that people called out for that could benefit thier daily lives and move Australia forward (sorry for the slogan). What comes to mind??? umm maybe the cost of living, unemployment, health care, taxes etc….

My point is that if you asked any Austalians what they want no one would list “better internet” in ther top ten!!!

The NBN is an issue blown up by the ALP and driven by ALP stooges such as yourself.

No one is doubting that broadband for everyone would be nice?? but what is the opportunity cost of such a program?? How esse could this money be spent that could BETTER improve our quality of live and move Australia frowrad (sorry again)....

nosthow says:

03:44pm | 17/09/10

@Nicole - hi Nicole - no nosthow is super polite these days - no more Mad Monk or Stare Queen - no sireee. Of course I may have a relapse ?

Hamish says:

01:22pm | 17/09/10

Very well said papachango.

AdamC says:

03:00pm | 17/09/10

Papachango, I agree we need someone to build a vision of, and build a constituency for, smaller government in Australia.

I also agree that, with his absurdly lavish maternity leave scheme for example, Abbott’s Coalition is little better at doing this than Howard’s was.

However, I would argue that small government advocates can do more working within the Liberal Party, or even within the Labor Party, than they can with their own parties like the unknown LDP.

Australia’s political history shows that positive change and reform are possible when a broad, intellectual constituency can be created for them. For example, who now would argue against floating the dollar, deregulating the financial sector, enterprise bargaining or a GST? Only the political fringe. These reforms were championed by the major parties, not small third parties or ginger groups.

The same could happen in the case of our toxic welfare state that is too geriatric and sclerotic even to call out for its own reform.

(I am obviously feeling optimistic on this Friday afternoon!)

acotrel says:

08:18pm | 19/09/10

Polly Waffle, Industry pays heaps of MBA consultants to increase efficiency by downsizing staff numbers, while still requiring the same anount of work to be done.  They never see themselves as being subject to the same cynicism!  Last one out, turn off the lights? The process has a name, it’s called ‘neoliberalism’, meaning you’re free to starve!

acotrel says:

08:24pm | 19/09/10

‘Please do tell Ms Mirrabella, if you are all in favour of market solutions to problems why have you and your ‘liberal’ party opposed an Emissions Trading Scheme despite the fact that a cap and trade system that allows the market to set the price is one of the best examples of small government classical liberalism around? ‘

Don’t be silly, Dave - we change the ideology to suit the situation ! It’s like claiming Peter Garret should control the operations of GRUB contractors?  But the Libs would have apoplexy, if he really tried it!!!!