Smaller government is desirable when the government services no longer meet the needs or become politicised. We need smaller government but from experience when government spending is reduced it is not always in areas that are of little value (ie. the high profile 'feel good' but make no difference programs). It very much depends on internal politics and culture rather than the public good unless there is direct intervention by politicians and politicians don't like to be seen to be telling senior bureaucrats how to run their ship.

Once the decision to cut spending is made politicians generally disconnect from the process and there is little responsibility and in some cases little knowledge of where cuts are made. Cuts are nearly always at the delivery end of services. The other tendency is to hide staffing costs under consulting fees or outsourced labour usually paid at less per hour than their permanent counterparts. Yes, we are talking about government here not some backwater construction company.

There is much that government could hand over to individuals and the private sector however, the benefits of our social democracy are in the social welfare supports for the aged, carers, disability, unemployed (with training) etc that separate us from the developing world where no such infrastructure exists and where bigger families replace government assistance.

We all have a different view of what governments should provide but most people are happy to pay taxes for universal care in health, education, law enforcement, emergency services etc where there is an organised and structured bureaucracy rather than some haphazard citizen militia replacing law enforcement(for example)with little accountability or governance.

Government involvement in essential services and utilities would ensure that any wage disparity does not result in real disadvantage for poorer people. We have already seen the results of privatisation in the energy sector.

The rest can be provided by private sector or individuals but you will see from the comments that ensue that there are many differing positions on the role of government.

Interesting concept, but how then does the government provide necessary services such as roads and health (I'm assuming they still should?)?
One of the issues I see with that argument is how far does it go, and from that we can see the problem in the US context is what exactly is the government there for? Is it there to provide law and order, infrastructure, etc? Or is there a more complex requirement to provide for in the areas that the free market cannot (or will not)?

A rather good article from one who will be welcomed with open arms by the so called 'drys' of the Libs. I was never an advocate of small government until I worked in the public service and university sector. I saw so much double and triple handling of work, so much sheer blithering incompetence, that I, like Matthew, see the wisdom of having a small government.

Even so, as Pelican has pointed out, there are some caveats.

I half jokingly think that the role of government is to be the whipping boy for a plurality of groups such as anti-pops, enviro groups, unions, community groups, who have no idea how government works. In the main, their requests for change have nothing to do with government policy or they are beyond the power of government to fix.

Cheryl
Don't forget to add the pro-growthists to that list. :)

Actually on this we do agree. Your experience is similar to mine.

The duplication of work in the APS is ludicrous and the executive bonus scheme only exacerbated the problem, encouraging senior bureaucrats to manipulate changes or new programs (often unnecessary) to justify their existence and their bonus. You end up with puffed up sections within the bureacracy with little to do, while the boffins who have been cut to smithereens drown under a pile of work, public abuse and management ire at why the work is not kept up to date despite massive staff cuts.

Mathew, what a great article. having lived through a period of small government in Australia I know how individuals and the country generally prospered.

Putting aside the economics (which is not my forte) I think about how much pleasanter life was without constant interference and direction from government, without listening to this and that pressure group or minority screaming about how the majority should live and attempting to force government to change things to suit their viewpoint. All too often they succeed, which is pretty much an indictment on the majority that we let this happen.

I might be wrong, but perhaps this may be the aspect of government Mathew had in mind. Government is always necessary in areas of health, taxation,education (perhaps) and to provide public infrastructure and so on.But it is not necessary, nor should it have the right to run such constant interference in the lives of its citizens.

We are vastly overgoverned in Australia and it is well past time some serious thought was given to how this might be reduced in order to get some of the burden of government of citizens backs and allow us to keep more of our hard-earned money for discretionary spending instead of on rapidly rising rates, utilities prices driven up by government bungling and so on.

In my opinion, government should set the guidlelines for how, for e.g., the health system should work, the outcomes it should achieve and let the professionals get on with running it, which they would do superbly without the constant interference of endless bureauracrats duplicated at every level and gobbling up scarce health dollars.

In his article Mathew wonders why Australians allow government to interfere mightily in their lives, why big government is seen as a panacea for all problems. This, it seems to me, points to a malaise in our culture.

"Yet we sit blindly by and allow our freedoms to slowly
diminish, for what is claimed the "greater good."

Where I am able I constantly write about this erosion of our freedoms and it is frustrating that it is not taken up and pondered by others. People, in general, don't seem to understand that this reduction in freedoms is occurring until some aspect is pointed out to them. But they are quick to see the stupidity of some government behaviour - constantly changing speeds on city roads - now surveiled by cameras and costing drivers millions of dollars.

This is justified as the "greater good", saving lives and so on while putting dollars in the pockets of big government.

One of the most insidious aspects of our continuing loss of freedoms is, not just that we begin to "lack personal strength", but that our sense of self and social discipline has been eroded to the point where it is barely a squeak. This allows for bad behaviour which government then runs interference on and regulates - usually at a hefty cost - for the "greater good."

Why, as a culture are we so accepting of this? Maybe we can trace this back to our convict roots, but for historical reasons outside the scope here, I don't think so.

Could it be that the millions who migrated here from "authoritarian European regimes" after the war, in the end accepted government interference in their lives as natural?

It is probably controversial to say this in today's world, but having lived a goodly span across small and big government, I think much of the malaise stems from too many rights and not enough teaching about the flip side - responsibilities.

Self and social discipline is a natural regulator which could do away with big government in certain aspects, if encouraged and allowed to flourish.