The authors write: "More important than a figure is transparency of public expenditure on administrative overheads. Olga shouldn't be the only one asking the question."
--
This question covers the whole spectrum of the colossal waste on managerialism (as distinct from necessary administrative costs) in the public sector. Attacks on the cost of public expenditure need to be focused on the direct and indirect cost of nonproductive networks of managers.

There is evidence that firing all such drones from the university sector, for example, and thus reducing the proportion of the education dollar wasted on the managerial superstructure to the levels of the pre-John Dawkins 1970s, would massively boost the funding of teaching and research without costing a cent of taxpayers' money, and this while radically improving (restoring) standards. Donald Meyers has painted a (non-quantitative) picture of this in a book that can be downloaded buckshee at http://www.australianuniversities.id.au/.

Good on Olga. Could she be cloned to cover the entire public sector?

Well said Mark and Patrick. As a former federal public servant, and currently on the ground in remote Aboriginal service delivery, you have encapsulated the irony of government funding very well. Extraordinary scrutiny of Indigenous organisations, struggling with limited and short term grants, yet no similar spotlight on the immense federal and other government administration and management of these grants!

Can I add a third call for these questions to be asked across the entire spectrum of the public service sector - where productivity seems all too often to be measured in brochure tonnage, replete with useless phone numbers which never address the problem you call with, and most often give you another number - upon calling which you get the same non-response. And its been like that for a long time. Must boost the numbers for the libertarians. And one other thing - isn't Olga's questioning directed at exactly the same problem identified by Pauline Hanson? For which she was vilified across the country as being racist - such a convenient term of abuse, absolutely guaranteed to freeze the brain in mid-thought.

Why are there only 3 comments on this important issue? Intimidation on the Aboriginal issue, I would suggest. Voice an opinion, however innocous, and you end up in court with Don Aitkin.