Mr Turnbull raises a key issue:

"Every aspect of Government policy, be it tax, welfare, corporate regulation or workplace relations, should be tested at least by these questions:

* Is this policy making it easier and more attractive for people to go to work?
* Is this policy enabling Australian workers to be more productive?
* Is this policy promoting or assisting the formation of Australian families?

Any policy, any law, which does not receive a “yes” to all questions should require a very powerful countervailing argument to remain part of our national agenda."

What he should go on to say is that every single destination of our tax dollar should receive the same treatment. "Any item of government spending that does not receive a 'yes' to all questions...."

How about a conscientious and sober examination of the sink-hole aspect of our tax system? Every pettifogging bureaucratic concept that has ever been dreamt up, we pay for and will continue to pay for, unless and until someone cries "stop!".

When did you last hear a politician advocate "small government"?

Successive governments have built a system that is not only self-perpetuating, but has an inbuilt growth engine. Once established, a government department has no chance of being disbanded - which of course would have to happen if the objective is to implement an "it has to have value to the taxpayer to survive" agenda.

Just tinkering with the "who pays what" aspect of taxation is to lose sight of the underlying problem: we pay vast chunks of our tax just to keep wasteful armies of public servants in pay and perks.

It is probably prophetic that Mr Turnbull also said "[a]s practical people we should judge our leaders, in whatever field, on output, not rhetoric: on substance not process."

Sounds a bit like an instant epitaph.

Well done on the EMTR's. I know this well as I'm on a disability pension and have to consider these carefully. ANother perhaps overlooked factor influencing the EMTR heavily is that renters of public housing pay according to an average of 25% of Gross income (NSW). Salary sacrificing cannot be used to reduce the gross as they ask you did you have salary sacrifice you are obligated to tell them, and tell the truth. As your rental payments go up, that may be another disincentive, unless you are a worker on a high wage there is only a little bit extra in it for you after working when you take out of your pay the higher rent that is charged. I'd like to see someone write a paper, on the work incentive effects of income-based public housing rentals.

By way of background, I never had an opportunity to enrol at a University due to family and broken home reasons, despite my HSC equivalent aggregate of close to 90.

For a DSP recipient, the increase in rents under state housing arrangements adds about 15% to the effective tax rate otherwise applying.

I probably should say 15 percentage points. For example, if the ETR was otherwise 30%, it would be 45%.

I would agree with Malcolm Turnbull’s three questions regards policy reform:-

· Is this policy making it easier and more attractive for people to go to work?
· Is this policy enabling Australian workers to be more productive?
· Is this policy promoting or assisting the formation of Australian families?

Perhaps such questions can be the basis for the Family Impact Statements that were talked about during the last election, and again mentioned by the Hon Kay Paterson in a speech at a recent AIFS conference. http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/minister1.nsf/content/aifs_families_matter_9feb05.htm

1. Pericles has it exactly right and Turnbull (possibly inadvertently) said it in several places around his article. Are we getting value from existing government programs or is it government policy that once a program or department is in, it is there there to stay, even if it is not creating value?

We need to look at all government programs, not just the new ones, and make sure they are meeting the goals that we are paying for.

2. The talk about national income is not the same as prosperity.

"Our prosperity, our “national income”, is a function of three factors: population, participation and productivity."

India's "national income" is five times larger than Australia's. Does the average family in Australia hope to move to India to enjoy more prosperity? Australia's per capita income is ten times higher than India's. That is the mark of economic prosperity.

It looks like Malcolm Turnbull sees Australia as a big corporation. If he can increase the number of workers and consumers, then the big corporation will have a higher "national income." It does not matter if the average worker's life gets tougher, as long as the "national income" goes up.

We need government that looks after the justice system, the environment, and the health and education systems. Are those on Malcolm Turnbull's agenda or is it all about building the "national income?"