Vern you raise some good pointe there and in theory I agree with the notion that governments cannot replace the individual drive that must motivate citizens to accept responsibility for their own destinies, either in the family or community setting.

HOWEVER....government also has the ability to shape the nature of the public economic and social marketplace and community attitudes, via legislation, government debate and by media influence. Government can either severely restrict or allow activity that may be directed from other sources of economic power. In this way it can create conflicts of interest between groups. Weaker social groups are often disadvantaged. Financially powerful self-interested groups may influence government decision-making unfairly.

I work on behalf of a non-profit community group that is actively trying to raise public awareness about the dangers of poker machines and the harms they cause to unsuspecting individuals, families and communities. We find it difficult to make it publicly known that poker machines are inherently dangerous pieces of machinery, akin to asbestos, a dangerous product. By their nature these machines cause addiction by acting upon normal human brain reasoning processes. Humans do not need to be 'irresponsible' to become addicted.

The gaming industry is economically powerful enough to influence a financially needful government, to maintain these dangerous machines, supposedly offered as harmless forms of 'recreation' for most people.

We hear of problem gamblers, but not of problem poker machines or problem government. Individuals are harmed by legislation that should protect them. Communities are bled dry.

In Victoria, the Monash local governmenty area loses $10 million every month from spending on poker machines. Such huge loss is replicated throughout much of Victoria and weakens our communities despite our efforts to prevent harm. Citizen opinion is ignored by government.

Whilst we cannot expect government to save us from every problem in life, we should be able to expect government to provide the appropriate public environment where we may keep ourselves, our families and our communities safe from industry or other harms.

Here, here, Vern, one of the more rational and libertarian posts I've encountered on this forum in a while. If you are looking for a voice advocating less government intervention across all fields of Australian life, you might like to visit www.libertarian.org.au and share your thoughts, or be directed to the Liberal Democratic Party, www.ldp.org.au.

We are coming to the place where Australians are growing up - no longer will we be able to shift the responibility on to "someone else" be that the Government.
Yes - we must safeguard those in need with a hand up when valid but no longer will there be a handout.
Third generation welfare recipients are now paying the price for Labor's leaders Whitlam and Hawke quck fix policies.
Easy money did not improve the family, health , employment or community EQ let alone the individual's sense of woth.

In principle, it depends on what type of 'community problem'
Many problems among low income families are due to financial stress.
Maybe one solution is to allow people of a certain age bracket who are single income families to split income. Impact on the economy is modelled below. (an educated guess more than anything)


Married Single Income Workers 1,000,000 (Estimate)
Average Income $40,000.00 (Estimate)
Tax on Single Income $8,172.00
Split Income $20,000.00
Tax on Split Income per person $2,380.00
Additional disposable Income $3,412.00

Tax Revenue on Single Income above $8,172,000,000.00
Tax Revenue on Split Income $4,760,000,000.00
Cost in Lost Revenue -$3,412,000,000.00
Expected Intake through
Additional GST (Disposable x .1) $341,200,000.00
Net Cost in Lost Revenue -$3,070,800,000.00

Projected Budget Surplus 2005 $8,900,000,000.00
Net Surplus after split income allowed $5,829,200,000.00

Benefit from lower stress levels of
struggling single income families_______"Priceless"

One of the easiest aspects of writing articles such as this is identifying the problem. One of the trickiest is suggesting a way out of it. On the one hand we have the massively over-funded machinery of "government", which has become an industry in and of itself, and on the other a few brave and worthy initiatives by concerned citizens "doing it for themselves".

Government is the only industry in Australia with an absolute mandate to take its income directly from our pockets, and to do with it as it will. (Although thinking about it, the Banks come close.) Even the governance and oversight processes are government-owned and driven, ensuring the untouchability of those concerned. To paraphrase Christopher Fildes, "giving money to the government is like giving a gallon of beer to a drunk: you know what will come of it, but you can’t know which wall he will choose."

The mechanisms of change are tightly controlled too, so there are very limited avenues through which our voices can be heard. How many of us at the last dozen elections looked at the ballot paper and said to ourselves "I wouldn't give tuppence for any of that lot", and ended up voting for the least-worst? Doesn't the population of a well-run democracy deserve better than being forced to choose when their heart isn't in it, much as the inhabitant of a dictatorship decides between casting a vote for the despot with a large, flamboyant X or a small and grudging one?

Fortunately - or unfortunately, depending on your level of intellectual tolerance - we are too affluent a society for this to worry us more than marginally. Which is why the government doesn't have a problem with articles like this. It doesn't matter how right or accurate they are, no-one will actually do anything about it.

Short of revolution, and we are too well-fed for one of those, we just have to put up with the present iniquities of government, and take every opportunity to slow its growth wherever we can.

It is indeed interesting times we live in when socialism is the status quo and a shift towards individual rights and responsibilities and small government are considered radical.

Taxation reform is the first step towards small government. All Australians who advocate less government intervention should whole heartedly welcome tax reform, and not just revenue neutral proposals. Tax reform shuld be linked to a reduction in the provision of services. The less of our money the state has, the less power they have over us, the responsibility we must take for ourselves and the more interest we will have in strengthening the communities we live in. Government makes it easy to dismiss our own social responsibilities, it breeds within people a growing sense of entitlement.

I don't think we need revolution, just a move towards smaller government and a reliance on ourselves and each other to foster a healthy civilisation.

Lobby groups - both of the left and right - have created a vicious cycle because once one gets money from the government, others expect money as well and the government is obliged to provide.

Too many people rely on the government to fix problems and provide solutions when, as Vern argues, bureaucracy is in no way in a position to do this.

The solution is often a one size fits all solution which may work in one area but not in others.

The media is just as much to blame - eg petrol is too high - lets runs stories telling the government to lower excsie or drop gst or stop fuel companies putting prices up. How about the options available to the people and communities. Car pool, ride a bike, walk to the shops, convert to LPG, sell one car if you have two, use biofuels. not to mention cutting spending in other non essential areas.

I would love for fuel to cost less, but until I have looked and tried all options to lower my weekly bill, I am in no position to demand the govt to do anything.

The tax system is one way we can immediately trim the bureaucracy and save money.

I find it ridiculous that my wife and I pay taxes only to receive FTB and child care subsidies, plus deductions back in our pocketat tax time. Why not get rid of our welfare, subsidies and deductions and lower the tax rate so we end up with the same amount of money.

If applied to every family, this would mean bloated tax office and centrelink would need far fewer people and the whole country saves money.

At least this kind of payment should be optional, and see how many people choose to use it.

Pericles, loved your pissing on the wall analogy, couldn't agree more.

Government should be the last port of call when problems arise, not the first.

t.u.s

>>I don't think we need revolution, just a move towards smaller government and a reliance on ourselves and each other to foster a healthy civilisation.<<

Ay, there's the rub.

"Smaller government" means fewer public servants sucking at the public teat, which means fewer government departments, which means less power available to the ministers, which means... we would have to elect altruists to parliament, who would be willing and able to vote against their own financial interests and career aspirations.

That's where the sequence breaks down, and will every time.

Pericles,

Not that I have a great deal of faith in the state to willingly immolate itself, there is evidence of political reform in Australia leading to less political power over us. I speak of reform such as the floating of the Australian Dollar, deregulation of the banks and telecomunications (leading to privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank and Telstra), deregulation of the industrial relation commission. These measures are against the grain of a leviathan state, although admittedly, the pain of these reforms has been paid for with bribes from the welfare state.

The sort of reform measures leading to small government are a long way off, but as people are increasingly encouraged to take care of their finances through IR reforms and a greater reliance on self-funded retirements and health through private medical insurance, people will begin to want to take control over more of their own lives without government interference.

>>The sort of reform measures leading to small government are a long way off, but as people are increasingly encouraged to take care of their finances through IR reforms and a greater reliance on self-funded retirements and health through private medical insurance, people will begin to want to take control over more of their own lives without government interference.<<

They might want to, Brendan, but the question is, will they be allowed to. "Encouraging self-reliance" is nothing more than a mindless mantra when it is accompanied by ever-increasing tax grabs and a burgeoning army of those dependent upon the government(s) for their livelihood.

And furthermore, what an example is set for self-restraint by public servants, with their gold frequent-flyer lifestyle paid for with our hard-earned money?

It is not simply the welfare-dependent that we have to get to stand more firmly on their own feet, but those to whom the governments of Australia pay salary, benefits, superannuation etc. There are, quite simply, too many of them, producing too little in the way of value to the economy or to the community. Unsurprisingly, they don't see it that way.

The underlying problem is that government has become an industry, rather than a service. How else are they allowed to get away with crowing about "budget surpluses" as some kind of virtue, when in fact it simply means they have stolen more than they need from our pockets? The Banks are the same, trumpeting their twenty billion dollars of profit as if it were some kind of achievement, when in fact it is simply the result of their being part of a cosy cartel with their sticky fingers firmly in our wallets.

We have simply lost sight of what we originally required our government to do for us, the citizenry, and allowed them to become just a tame extension of the media, finance, transport etc. industries.

I understand your frustration, aren't you the least encouraged by the current debate regarding tax reform? I remain sceptical, but not desolate.

Mark Latham's recent diatribe reflected much of what we're discussing here:

"Community building sits outside the conventional methods of party politics. Whereas public policy relies on a sense of order and predictability, the work of civil society is spontaneous and disorderly. Whereas governments try to have a direct and tangible impact on their citizens, the creation of mutual trust relies on processes that are diffuse and intangible. There is no point in passing a Social Capital Bill and expecting it to make people community-minded.

Trust occurs as a by-product of the relationship between people. It is not like a well-ordered machine, whereby policy makers can pull the levers and mandate a particular result. The best they can hope for is to influence the social environment in which trust is created. They need to see themselves as facilitators of social capital, rather than controllers of social outcomes.

This is best achieved by transferring influence and resources to communities, devolving as many decisions and public services as possible. Real power comes from giving power away. But this is not how the parliamentary system works, especially a machine political party. Powerbrokers try to capture and control the authority of government, not give it away. They believe in the centralisation of power, not its dispersal. The square peg of Labor politics does not fit into the round hole of social capital, an insoluble problem.

So the most effective contribution people can make to our society is at a community level: in rebuilding social capital, improving our neighbourhoods, joining social movements and helping local charities, sporting and community organisations. Social problems require social solutions. The answers are not to be found in organised politics."

The man may not have had the political skills to acheive office, and his foreign policy observations are completely off the wall, but he was at least thinking in right direction when it comes to the limitations of the power of the state to fix our ills.

I fully endorse Vern Hughes view, and supportive expression of tus – “Government should be the last port of call when problems arise, not the first.”

Banpokies1 “HOWEVER....government also has the ability to shape the nature of the public economic and social marketplace and community attitudes, via legislation, government debate and by media influence.”

A government is expected to reflect “the nature of the public economic and social marketplace and community attitudes”

A government is not their to “shape” it

Which, I believe, is the major difference between liberal values and authoritarian values.

Finally – any reference to Latham needs to be put in the context of “coincidence”.
Latham, by denouncing central government presented his “disordered personality” and its dealing with (rationalising) rejection for national office. Thus, through his “rejection”, he is going to praise “small government”, despite his previous leadership of “the political party most in favour of large government”.

All demands from smaller government, less bureaucratic intervention and less manipulation and restriction of individual aspirations, choices and options is good.

Suggestions for bigger government, greater bureaucratic control (of course, in the name of fairness or equality) present a horror which needs to be resisted at every opportunity. The horror which can ultimately lead to someone like Latham coming to within an election of “Power”

I probably well over the mark here, But Government reforms of the Telco, etc are perfect examples of what was a bloated Bureaucracy, and that Communist mantra of someone else can pay the bill, sorry reality has to hit home and hit hard, perhaps from that type of thinking in the past, that security no longer exists.
And my next point would be Capitolism has been Hy-jacked by Elites in Government, NGO's and in big Buisiness to a point it resembles more of a Maffia regeime than an Enterprising buisiness, so far as Corporations go.
I employ 8 people in a small company, I work and so do my employees, if I can not make money, I can not employ anyone, nor can I pay Taxes to give to some Fat butted idiot that could not be bothered anyway or Governments to spend in Ideological and idiotic mannour that leaves my nation exposed to some Stupid idiotic whims of some Migrant agendas. I'm peed off and so should you all.
We are not the Socialis republic of Never Never, we are Australia, so get off your butt and make it work properly.Hmmm That feels better.

Coincidence notwithstanding, what Latham says here strikes an accord with placing responsibility on the individual rather than abrogating it to the state.

The Liberal Party is no small government party either, Howard has sat at the head of a government that has seen one of the biggest growth of middle class welfare (read pork barelling) since Whitlam. Crowing over budget surpluses is not what I want from a federal government, all it means is that they have been more successful at taxing us than they have been at thinking up ways to bribe us (with our own money, I might add). The only winners here are civil servants and politicians.

Vern Hughes has gotten very close to the heart of Austrlia's problem. We all want "them" to do something "for us" but expect to retain our freedoms and be prosperous, which is an illusion. The government is not the answer! We are the answer when we take responsibility for our own problems and for our own communities. The government can play its role by enabling (not blocking) the functioning of life-giving grassroots social networks, and wealth-generating free enterprise.

mykah "The government is not the answer! We are the answer when we take responsibility for our own problems and for our own communities. The government can play its role by enabling (not blocking) the functioning of life-giving grassroots social networks, and wealth-generating free enterprise. "

I would certainly agree with every word of that.

I want a government which will leave me alone to make my own mistakes, for I know the mistakes I make I can recover from - but government errors, made across the entire population, will be far harder to recover from.

As someone on another thread pointed out my (unashamed) fondness for quoting dear Margaret Thatcher

"We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state."

I think Vern is spot on with his take on community building and the failure that flows from using government (ie force) in trying to "fix" community problems. The only problems that should be fixed using government (force) are threats from violent individuals (criminals) and foreign invaders. We need a smaller state and we need a state focused primarily on the core activities of law and order and national defence. The rest should be left to civil society and the market place.

As for "floating the dollar" being an indication of smaller government I think this is utter rubbish. Instead of fixing the exchange rate they now fix the interest rate. It is not less interventionist just differently interventionist. At the end of the day its still a fiat currency printed by the government and managed according to government policy. They still use open market operations to drive liquidity up or down according to their objectives. Neither a gold standard, nor the US dollar peg was inheriently more statist than a floating exchange rate. Its like suggesting that laws that say we should drive on the left are more statist than laws that say we should drive on the right. Such a conclusion is just bunkum.