BUDGET 2013: How Abbott will tear up the blueprint

Premium content

To access premium content, please log in or set up a subscription. It's quick and easy.

More from Business Spectator


Please login or register to post comments

Comments Policy »

The Abbott Hockey and Costello sitting in the background will be good at trimming the expenditure side of the ledger..... and regulations(lets hope)
“the greatest inhibition to private sector growth, and the greatest removable cost burden, is the amazing Gillard-Rudd governments’ achievement of introducing more than 20,000 regulations”.
And Yes
“But behind each set of regulations is a group of public servants who report to someone who reports to someone else and so on...” They will still be around though....

Trimming the fat is the easy bit, on the expenditure side, hope they found something directly growing the cake on the revenue side of the ledger for all these hands.
If we cannot grow the cake we wont get out of the hole, so selling assets and some Thatcherism is not truly growing the revenue side.

The UK did not make it after Thatcher because this is not a real Growing revenue model, hope Costello stays out of it, the legacy of Labor+Thatcher style of govt is a debt hole and a tax burden nobody has been able to come out from. Lets not follow them..

I posted today - the easiest spending cuts you will ever make are that additional spend you never make in the first place. This is because you never have to setup another govt consumer to manage the spend and you never have to take it off someone later on

Lets give back to Peter what belong to Peter unless you both had the same thinking, I am not an admirer of Peter Costello on the vision side and State Vs Fed funding, but when it comes to budget, he is on the ball and accurate, I would not argue with him of budget points, he is likely to have them right.

Swan can't accept that revenue this year is up against the previous years. The decline in revenue of $17 billion is against forecast. Unfortunately the Government went ahead and spent it before receiving it. That is the problem and the public know it. How can anybody believe Treasury numbers that a surplus will be achieved some years in the future when they cannot get the current year correct. This is of course consistent with decades of incompetence in Treasury. The RBA is not much better. Australia is in for a tough time irrespective of who is in Government and there will by necessity be a decline in the standard of living. We have far too many enjoying a free lunch. Most of these are employed in the public sector. A redeployment of about 50000 in productive activities would generate a saving of about $7.5 billion.

Ironically Roberts prediction are very similar to the Costello report into Queensland, particularly the public service. Costello sights the blurring of responsibilities between the commonwealth and states, increases in spending in the public service resulting in a 43% increase in staff (Qld Health), with only a 17% increase in productivity. This data came from data collected during the Beattie/Bligh era. The upshot being staff increases related heavily to unproductive personnel sitting in corporate offices administrating god only knows what. Newman eventually made 14,000 public servant jobs redundant, most in administration and clerical, some in areas where duplication had occurred. The same is going to happen federally, I have no doubts whatsoever.

If we listened to Swan, this governments main focus from the recent budget is the creation of jobs and a future surplus. No one can deny this governments achievements in job creation, or as I call it job invention, in fact all Labor governments can give themselves a pat on the back for keeping unemployment figures down. The problem is, and as Robert pointed out, the many regulations imposed by Rudd/Gillard needed staff to administer, unproductive staff, staff that are unlikely to contribute to a growing economy.

Over the past several weeks there have been may calls by those of the left persuasion, "where will Abbott get his savings". Removing some of these restrictive regulations, imposed simply to foster union dominance, will free up industry and production, most of which is unnecessary paperwork. Again as Robert said, there will be no need for staff to administer these regulations meaning anything up to 20,000 commonwealth public servant positions becoming redundant, which could arguably amount to a $2 - $4 billion saving. As restriction are removed from business, employment will most likely increase creating jobs in the private sector. The big difference being those displaced public servants may find themselves having to work, instead of spending too much time in a coffee shop.

The Abbott Hockey and Costello sitting in the background will be good at trimming the expenditure side of the ledger..... and regulations(lets hope), agreed,

but no Colin I dont agree “As restriction are removed from business, employment will most likely increase creating jobs in the private sector”

What will rally happen is that for new jobs and growing the cake, it will fail, how quickly, difficult to predict, depend on how much activity is simply shifted overseas, offshored, but it will fail unless the coalition brings some new blood at the top.

How can someone not even able to employ available senior hands with the most skills, taxing them 50% on the age pension and having displayed previously a propensity to offshore and outsource everything will be able to add new hands, to grow the economy, grow the cake and the revenue side to repay the debt, this time, we need new faces, not that empty approach to revenue side, we need an educated approach with a business vision and strategic planning skills they do not possess, time to bring new faces otherwise we are heading straight and fast to join Europe pub with no growth.

Also no hope from protecting and developping the new sophisticated supply chain from the current crop of politicians, they just dont know, and dont want to know it, in normal circumstances people would say, if you dont want to know, here the door mate, but no, we will say long live the king, let the voters and the media roar, we need a Telstra Woodside or Airbus University and hands on expertise development in new technologies this is not an accounting jobs, some people are dreaming that selling meat pies at the footy and visit the fish market will fix our economy!!!

Francois, the main stumbling block restricting both foreign and domestic investment in Australia are the restrictive policies placed on business by unions and this government. At present it costs more to do business in Australia than arguably anywhere else in the world. What creates real jobs, not unproductive public service pencil pushers, is foreign and domestic investment. Removing these restrictions will free up the flow of foreign and domestic investment into the jobs market as doing business in Australia become more cost attractive.

Your focus is too attached to "trimming the expenditure" as you call it. Sure, and when Abbott removes the impost of the carbon tax and MRRT, many public service administration jobs will go. Their jobs simply no longer exist, shouldn't have been there in the first place. As I pointed out about 20,000 commonwealth public service jobs could go, that's about a third of the private sector jobs that were lost due to these restrictions. The other two thirds made up by Labor state governments.

The other side of the equation is generating revenue, which you seem to pass by. By removing restrictions, they are creating a more investment friendly atmosphere. It's about returning confidence back into the business sector, confidence that the unions took away from them, particularly our SME's, our biggest employer. Secondly Francois, if you don't have confidence, you can't have growth. The reason why this government has an over bloated public service, earning no revenue, is because the business sector had this confidence kicked out of them, leaving the public service as the only viable employment market.

You mentioned outsourcing. That's because at the moment it cheaper to do business elsewhere. We have to encourage business to do business here and that won't happen when their progress is restricted. The Coalition does have a business vision, it's about reinvigorating confidence back into the business and consumer sectors, creating productive jobs.

I am not sure what you are saying in your last paragraph but will try to respond. As a senior, which I am one of, employers have always shown a reluctant to employ those over the age of 50, for whatever reason. That's not something new, it's been happening for as long as I can remember. I also feel for pensioners, trying to live on the pension. Macklin recently said she could live on the pension quite easily, but backed down when pressured by pension groups. Rules on what pensioners earn and loses they incur when they earn an income is not specific to one party, so I don't know why you would try and shove this under the Coalition.

As I wrote MP's are required to operate along respective party lines, changing faces doesn't the party line.

Australia become more cost attractive by removing red tape yes and ineffective bureaucracy Yes, I have mentioned a I agree with that, YES.

No NO “The other side of the equation is generating revenue, which you seem to pass by. By removing restrictions, they are creating a more investment friendly atmosphere.”

That is just step one, and the crux of the problem, good thing but on itself it will achieve nothing more than doing that, good for a while, nothing local in the long term, you might just sell more assets and offshore more after that.
You views are conform to the previous leaders in WA who believed that you just do what you said and business follows, remind me of WA Labor Leader Mark Mc Gowan recently “I have asked them to down process and add value they are not interested”, or previous liberal leader Richard Court asking the same question, they just laugh at him, we have been waiting for the Oakajee mid west port for 20 years with this approach, but WA Premier Colin Barnett said we will wave some of the royalties if you participate, it got some traction for a while then stopped.

- A - If you have the choice between a 457 and a senior Australian citizen at the petrol station to pay the fuel will you chose a 457 or a pseudo 457?
- B - If you have the choice between a local robotic engineer or a CKD made in India will you chose the CKD(Completely Knocked Down) from India and kill an essential link in the supply chain?
- C - If you have the choice between negotiating the Purchase of Airbus with an Airbus Industries University at the key with some local manufacturing and Maintenance will you just send all the staff offshore and dont worry about this staff, cultivating the idea that we dont have the skills?

ABC above increase our revenue side of taxes, name me a single person that would have been monitoring financial systems for Airbus Ford or BHP and someone having a prominent position in manufacturing to create a Telstra University or a Woodside University, do we have a G Humbert a J Nasser et al in our government or their advisers, no we have a Ken Henry a Ross Garnault.

Costello Abbott Hockey et al are about as Zeroooooooooooes as the Penny Wong or the current government with their green attachments. Unions are not the problem it is the role outside of the work context that they play that is damaging, the excessive rank and file that does prevent wages to get as low as $1 the hour but push too far to get them as high as $100 on a 30hours week!

Final point it is not Abbott and Costello that created the Super that feed the market loop not the market currency, they had no vision and were wearing the thatcherist blinkers with no building long term revenue side, yes we want a change to the right, no more ultra socialist hoot nannies but we need new heads in the coalitions.

Either wonder why successful corps and businesses have some good strategic planners mostly Harvard scholars why some other always find someone to buy “from the we all have a price” to get things through mostly also to avoid showing their lack of skills and experience?

You say creating a friendly investment atmosphere is a good thing, but on it self will achieve nothing. Who said it would be on itself, you have, no one else has, well not that I am aware off anyway. Now you said that Premier Barnett offered incentives in the relation of royalties to try and encourage the Oakajee project to go ahead, but it has a gained stalled. I am not from WA, but from what I understand the deep water port project was in conjunction with mining leases in the vicinity. The project was 100% financed by the private sector, including the iron ore mines. The reason the project has not yet progressed is purely a business decision by Murchison metals and Mitsubishi corporation, a decision based on what is a viable return on the investment. Which emphases my point, additional operating costs associated with federal government restrictions placed on the mining industry has made what once was a viable project now unviable. Premier Barnett has tried to alleviate some of the consortiums concerns by removing part of WA's royalties tax, good on him shows foresight. But I emphasise that their decision was a business decision, caused by commonwealth interference. However I also understand the project is only shelved and may recommence once some of these commonwealth restrictions are removed.

Since temporary 457 visas were introduced, they were designed to allow employers to employ skilled workers in an area where there were no Australians skilled to do the job. Mostly mines and some areas in construction. Not designed to employ petrol consul operators. I think we know the answer to that, and if what you say is true, that petrol station owner could be prosecuted, and should be.

I have no idea what the connection is between this segment and B and C. Maybe you have a personal problem, but Australian companies do have financial departments that look all things financial. Airbus and Ford are not Australian companies. BHP or BHP Billiton as it is now called is British. However they all have financial departments looking after their Australian arms.

Victoria and soon Queensland will adopt legislation to prevent union interference at work sites. It's been well documented. Both governments have identified that the cost of construction projects would be reduced by up to 25% by this legislation. So yes unions are seen as a problem, both inside and outside work sites.

I agree the SGL was implemented by Hawke, but it wasn't designed as an economic tool, but to cater for our aging population, taking stress of social welfare. It's Swan and Wong who wanted to get their hands on it, and after Hawke promised us that no government would.

You can't buy jobs and that's what this government was doing, using our money to do so. Because of our high wages and cost of living, we will never be able to compete with other countries, but by allowing doing business in Australia more comfortable, we will encourage private sector job growth, and revenue growth. Maybe the Oakajee project will recommence.

Will we be removing the age threshold and OHS rules relating to children pulling trolleys in coal mines?

Robert starts on two extremely wobbly premises - firstly, that these "extra" regulations in fact serve no useful purpose, secondly, that there is no need to keep people with expertise in these specialist areas.

Given the utter failure of politicians to coordinate the pace of the mining boom, I'd have thought that the mothballing of Olympic Dam was a good thing. A detailed study of the aptly-named 'China First' (Australia's biggest coal mine, proposed for the Galilee Basin in Queensland) showed that the mine would destroy over 2,000 manufacturing jobs in Queensland alone. The National Farmer Federation has estimated that the net impact on farm incomes of a 1% appreciation in the Australian Dollar to be in the range of $190 million annually. NORCO, the dairy cooperative based in the Northern Rivers, has emphasised that their $400 million operation is not compatible with coal seam gas in that region. Regulation is essential to minimise such conflicts.

According to the WTO:
"Australia's growing dependence on mining may amplify the business cycle, as the economy will become more vulnerable to swings in its highly favourable terms of trade. A major economic challenge confronting Australia, with potential trade policy implications, is to formulate appropriate macroeconomic and structural policies to facilitate rather than impede adjustment to the effects of its greatly improved terms of trade owing to the mining boom and the associated appreciation of the Australian dollar."

How do we manage such challenges without regulation and without a competent, independent, apolitical public service? Under Abbott we won't of course. Dump asbestos next to the child-care centre? Go for it, mate, much more streamlined and efficient.

Business waxes lyrical about the evils of regulation, but will happily add its own 15-page discipline policy to a one-page clause in the EBA (some businesses will add a 3-page set of Disciplinary Principles as well), then urge such as Robert to complain about those extreme union demands.

Once the regulations go (which will be the effect - and intention - of transfer to States), we'll see soaring death rates in nursing homes – but think of how the turnover will improve the sector's profits.

I had to read Roberts comments again, sorry I didn't see anything about removing the age threshold and OHS rules relating to children pulling trolleys in coal mines. I think if Robert was talking about anything specific, I would conclude it's the MRRT and carbon tax, which is likely costing us more than it's worth. The other point I believe Robert alluded to is that Rudd/Gillard introduced these regulations in order to create an administrative network of public servants. We all know their mantra is about jobs, I guess it doesn't matter how they come about doing that, in your eyes anyway.

Wasn't the Waratah mining project in the Galilee basin aptly named "China First" given "Major Project facilitation" (being fasted tracked) by yes you guessed it, the Labor government. Federal Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese acknowledged the project would deliver “considerable benefits” to the national economy if it went ahead. This was November 2009, 3 years ago. I don't think much would have changed.

I was born in country Queensland, and still know many who do still live there. Sure there are those that oppose gas extraction, but than there are those that sanction it. The problem is that Australia's economy no longer rides on the back of wheat and wool because the backside has fallen out of the world market. Live exports have not recovered since Labor's stuff-up. Mining is it, whether we like it or not. You want to keep you weekly pay packet, put food on the table and enjoy recreational activities, we need mining activity to maintain our economy. Our manufacturing industry is all but non existent, has been for a while, tourism is in a slump and our retail sector is not fairing all that well either.

However what we need to do is encourage these non mining sectors to take up the slack currently being experienced in the mining sector, and the only way to do this is reduce regulation. OHS regulations won't be removed, just that money hungry unions wont be able use their police state mentality to charge sites thousands of dollars pretending they care.

The rest of you comments are the wild ranting of someone who has just realised they are about to lose their precious toy.

A selective and self-serving reply, taking care to avoid the relevant issues. What does MRRT and carbon levy have to do with regulations?

“more than 20,000 regulations”? Where will I find a list? Where will I find a comparison – like for like – with the number introduced by the Howard government? WorkChoices comprised fifteen hundred pages of legislation that protected some basics while giving the bosses plenty of strategic rights.

See how this Rightist strings together a number of things this Rightist obviously doesn't like, deems them the cause of [insert problem here], then blames Gillard Labor for them.

Despite the live export industry having long been warned about its wilful contempt for animal welfare, as usual it changes nothing, expecting that it can tough out its greed and arrogance through buying politicians, playing the Aboriginal jobs card, playing the hard-up card, playing the no-alternatives card, playing the cruelty-to-desert-animals card, playing the Sergeant Schultz defence, playing the little-Northern-Aussie-battler card, and if all else fails just demand more payola from the government to go quiet on being caught with its fingers in the till.

Government has an important role in fostering efficient and socially useful sectors, be it propping up manufacturing or assisting it to reposition, or even slowing the growth of mining booms. Important strategic areas needing clear and detailed government support. Manufacturing is an important means of countering the increasing polarisation of wealth and income. It therefore deserves serious policy and financial support. Mining will leave us nothing but a hole in the ground.

The rest of your comments are the wild ranting of someone who has just realised they are about to lose their precious toy.

Ambrose, I didn't say the MRRT of carbon tax were specifically attached to regulations, I said they were a waste of money. I don't think many would disagree, except you. I didn't quote 20,000 regulations. There is arguably 20,000 too many people employed in the commonwealth public service though. Maybe that's where you got that figure from.

"Government has an important role in fostering efficient and socially useful sectors, be it propping up manufacturing or assisting it to reposition", only if they did. Gillard gave financial assistance to a car manufacturing plant recently. The unions soaked up the money in pay rises for their members and the plant has now closed.

"Slowing the growth of mining booms", some might say stopping it altogether. Pill Clarke's, and your ranting over the last few days have to be admired, but I really think both of you have lost it. Your words are panic driven.

And do you have a problem with Aboriginals Ambrose, because it sounds like it

Colin, all it comes down to, is the experience and background to make good local business facilitating decisions and have the right to sit on the benches of parliament.

You still have not got it between removing regulations and developing local industries and changing heads.
Basically in a very short metaphore, FTTP or FTTN is the tip of the iceberg, yes more nodes are needed for business, and no if you can't see that the content in the Fibre between point A and Point B is what drives Business then you will only offshore faster the Jobs with the NBN and you need new faces in parliament, ditto for transport and business(CATASTROPHICAL).

Yes we Can't ask to create a Telstra University to every front benchers, and in many cases it is pointless because Labor costs are only at 10 to 15% ratio in Modern CKD Robotic based manufacturing.

And for indigenous people and to diversify and add value Twiggy Forrest at Fortescue did not wait after any coalition or labor person.

If you like someone with accounting or banking skills to run the place it is a choice, I afraid we would do better with more productive unions and more productive local business oriented people with the right strategies for the supply chain..

It not up to governments to create local industries, this can only be achieved by private enterprise. Governments would be crucified if they did. What governments do is try to remove any restrictions and hurdles via legislation, that are preventing private enterprise to create industries.

You keep on about new faces in parliament, and I keep telling you that our two major parties are restricted by party rules. Doesn't make any difference who is in in the Coalition and Labor parties, they all have to follow the same respective rules. So again are you talking about a third party.

The NBN has been flogged to death. Whether it's the FTTN or FTTP, most if not all business and public entities will connect to fibre. It would pay them to do so.

I also would like to see unions and industry sit down and discuss Australia's future, but from where I sit, that wont happen. The Fair Work Act is a prime example, very little if any industry input, like limited union input in workchoices. Maybe one day, but not today.


You have it on good authority that the Coalition will....?

Or, is it merely part of your personal wish list?

- - -

It seems to me that the media spend an inordinate amount of energy telling political parties what they are doing wrong or what is needed, yet spend minimal energy interviewing key players &/or using research to describe the actual game.


Well said, Bruce. Just to back up your example, Gottliebsen's attribution of the Olympic Dam deferral to regulation overload is simplistic and disingenuous. The main reason for the deferral was technical. BHPB were not confident they had a robust and reliable process to separate the uranium and copper to a degree necessary to be able to ship the copper to o/s smelters. They recognised their current separation process ran the risk of uranium impurities in the copper concentrate above the level processable by smelters overseas. In short - too much uranium = not shippable.
That information was not buried in the report BHBP issued at the time of the deferral. Just as Abbott ranted at the time, about the deferral being down to the Carbon Tax (until Leigh Sales pulled him apart on 7.30), Gottliebsen is treating his readers as fools by pumping out simplistic solutions to complex problems.
Same old, same old. As for this touting of coal mine investment, well maybe a look at Bloomberg Energy Group's recent report on real relevant costs of different energy sources might better inform the correspondent. Or, maybe a look at how world wide financing institutions have put the clamps on coal mining and fired power station investment might better inform the correspondent on the future of thermal coal. Even financiers are taking note of Bill McKibbin at 350.org and adjusting their plans accordingly.
Here, not so much. As you say, shallow research.

At the heart of any conversation about over regulation must be what to do about the anachronism that is State Government, the greatest money soak for the public purse and the ultimate regulatory duplication. They remain as a hangover from the time when the architects of federation had to placate the colonial dinosaurs who refused to accept that Australia, as a single nation, could survive without mother England at the helm. I think we've debunked that myth sufficiently now, time to grow up and move on. And think of the great museums (or casinos) those parliament houses will make, officially.
Sadly just as the issue of local government being given its rightful place gains momentum we will have a new federal government that has, as a core ideology, the primacy of State's rights. And once more the question that needs to be examined won't be: Exactly what is it that the States do that can't be done better, more efficiently and more directly by a genuinely purposeful and properly focused restructure of the federal/local government relationship?
The only answer that springs to mind is bloated bureaucracy that consumes valuable public resources shuffling paper then leaving the sticky, necessary questions to federal and local governments to solve.

I entirely agree with Serge on this. State Government as we currently have it is an anachronism and Budgetory burden we do not need. It belongs to the days when the fastest way to deliver a message was to send a pigeon. We would be far better off with a Federal centre that operated through regional offices and with one legal code. But that would require Constitutional change.

State Government is notoriously incompetent and corrupt. It operates successfully at neither the whole State, or the Local Government level. At the latter level - where Local Government is really a particularly incompetent wing of State Government - it is just one bent Council Office after another. Almost every resident hates dealing with them. They are a pain in the neck for both developers, including owner occupiers, and for those seeking reasonable enforcement of regulations regarding development. All too many issues are settled by Councils taking a dive in the Land and Environment Courts or equivalent, in their State. Many Council offices persecute residents and exploit them rather than serve them, imposing unnecessary fines and penalties that do nothing to improve the locality, and merely hurt the penalised. Where a person overstays in a parking spot by a couple of minutes, I would hardly think he causes $170 worth of social damage! - or whatever the current fine in your locality is

There is nothing wrong with regulation so long as it is properly codified and humanely enforced. The trouble is that it is not. In the legal profession there is great concern at the extent to which the Rule of Law has been replaced by arbitrary decisions. Many regulations almost scream the words "pay me a bribe", in that they contain deliberately inserted arbitrary powers. This form of drafting should be made procedurally illegal, it is fraudulent

The real overload in the Public Service comes in the upper echelons where executive postitions are created as jobs for the boys, especially again at Local Government level. Many of these have functions that are carried out by the workforce anyway - the executive mostly justifying its existence by being a blasted nuisance, getting in the way, and gumming up the works - and holding "meetings"

The first line of defence for these structures takes the form of "Human Resources" to head off internal fury - and "internal ombudsmen" or "public liaison officers" to disempower complainants amongst the general public

If we really want to save some money we could start by rationalising the number of states. We really do not need four in Eastern Australia. Why not reduce it to two, combining NSW and Queensland, shedding part of Southern NSW to create a second State out of Southern NSW, Victoria, and Tasmania?. WA and NT could be combined with South Australia being attached to either the new South Eastern State or to the WA/NT combination. Imagine the savings in reducing the number of states to three. - Or get rid of them altogether. That would be a long term Budget saving of colossal proportions

Phil, you and Serge have a point. If you read the Costello audit report into Queensland's finances, available on the governments website, you will note he said very much the same thing. If I remember correctly, he said the responsibilities between commonwealth and state have become blurred. That's a two way street. He also highlighted spending on Queensland health saw the department size increase by 43%, with productivity increasing by only 17%. Roughly 14,000 staff were made redundant, mostly in corporate, but also programs that were essentially the responsibility of the commonwealth. He was crucified for doing that, trying to fix a problem you both highlighted.

For the past several months we have heard that the commonwealth public service is also over crowded, the figure quoted is 20,000 staff. I also believe Gillard and Swan have been made aware of this, from their own people. Have you ever wondered how tens of thousands of jobs have been lost in the private sector, yet our unemployment figures have remained fairly static. It's not hard to put two and two together.

As states and territories change to conservative governance, this problem that you both have highlighted, becomes more and more evident. The mantra of Labor is jobs, jobs and jobs. Every Queensland election saw Labor claim they would create x number of jobs. Were they doing this by using tax payer money to create bogus jobs in the public service, you decide.

I really don't have an issue with a shake-up of the state and commonwealth public service. Phil mentioned "Human Resources" as a source of his wrath. They are not my favourite either. But I disagree with Phil's comment re the states, they have to stay, be more proactive, but stay.

I'd never read anyone blame the mining investment cliff on current government policies. That's an amazing claim that would seem to require the author ignoring some rather significant global headwinds.

Claims like that need to be backed by some hard numbers and argued from a number of angles, sadly there was no attempt here.

Whilst many of us may wish for less bureaucracy, have opinions on only have 2 levels of Government, whether it be State or Regional government and may lament the inefficiencies and corruption perceived at both the state and local level of politics, we must never forget that the Federal Government is a construct of the States (the Colonies) and not the other way around. The discussion of change, very much needed, is much broader than simply deciding a new model, no matter how appealing. The complexity of bringing about such a change is, if not impossible, at least 100+ years in the making. After all, who is wanting to give up their sovereign rights? This question is almost insummountable, before we get to all the various vested interests of different groups e.g. political parties, public servants, just to name but a few.

I wonder just what percentage of the increase in the Medicare levy will be spent on administration of the NDIS in Canberra. So many of the current Federal government's initiatives are just empire building. It's time to remember that Australia is a Federation like Germany and the USA not like the UK as it is at the moment.

All, NDIS was already budgeted three years ago.

and here's the link to murdock...."I am grateful to The Australian’s economic correspondent, Peter van Onselen". Good conservative brothers all in bed with the king maker

Someone has to put some content in the fibre to create jobs.Someone has to develop technology to create this web site and jobs, May be we could use wooden tablets and scriptures they do that at the Asterix part in central France, and even there again it is the business that creates some jobs.

Thankfully its been a long time but I have worked for both commonwealth and Victorian governments.In both a vast amount of cost is soaked up paying people to write memos to each other often playing clever,or not so clever,bureaucratic power games.Add to that the constant tug of war between commonwealth and states which soaks up lots more tax payers funded wages funding economic dead weight losses.To seriously cut the cost of government administration we need to go back to constitutional fundamentals.If health is a states function we dont need 5000 public servants in a Canbera department arguing about it .A much smaller group can divide up payments to states and let them be totally responsible for hospitals.nurse training ,doctor training etc.The idea that a bunch of Commonwealth public servants i are wiser than state public servants who are often much closer to the point of actual service delivery is ludicrous.A similar situation exists with education bureaucrats.As for somebody asking to see a list of regulations;you cannot be serious there are what amount to whole libraries of regulations maintained by parliamentary draughting offices state and federal.Most of all we need to break down the dangerous belief among ACT based federal public servants that their based bureaucracy has the ultimate wisdom as to what is best for Australia.Treasury performance under Henry and Parkinson casts doubt.The public servants who dreamed up the first version of the mining tax had never visited a mine and declined an industry offer to take them on a tour.As is now widely recognised that version of the tax would have been disastrous for commonweath finances when the inevitable mining industry downturn occurred.