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”