I have no reason to dispute Des' figures - taxes are up and government spend is down - I suspect it could be reduced further still.

It is edifying to go to the budget papers of the Prime Minister Cabinet and note the the Outcome Area with the smallest budget allocation is that of Social Policy Development - the hungriest sector is that dealing with keepinf us safe from Osama and his donkey brigade - but that is a horse of a different colour.

The problem with each layer of government is that for evey dollar they save in expenses - usually in service related area they take back about 75c in rewards systems for themselves - they report the decereased spend in service areaa as efficiencies and bury the added extras with which they shower themselves.

Have look for example of the expenditure of the current Mayor for Wodonga on her self and her CEO - and ask your self if you want her in powere any where else - she is standing for pre selection for a Labour seat!

Yes government can be down sized - at the same time money can be saved and services preserved - but as long as governments essentially set their own terms and conditions - the savings and down sizing will be cosmetic and at the expense of the tax payer

Ah good old Des. What he really wants to say is "privatise the profits, and leave the losses to be picked up by the punters". Many people like big Govt. Des. They dont even want them to carry Billion$ surplusses. They would like to see it spent on health and education. Paid for by the Govt., and not run for profit by Des and his mates.

hedgehog as a member of generation y i'm all for budget surpluses. i'd even advocate an increase in current taxes and a further reduction in discretionary spending. to spend up big because we're operating a surplus is a short sighted view of things.

the government isn't running a surplus because of higher taxes or reduced spending. it's only natural for a government to operate a surplus when the economy is booming. times are good.

unemployment figures out this morning indicate the lowest level of unemployment in 30 years (i think), this means not only have welfare payments been reduced but at the same time tax revenue has increased. our export industry is thriving and our terms of trade are good. the recent reporting season saw businesses profits surge.

and the government - well, they don't operate for profit, they are merely provisioning for the future, i'd rather the aging population contribute towards future payments of presently arising liabilities.

Generation 'ME' did you say. Working a couple of hours a week didnt constitute employment in my day.

woah! good response. hedgehog i think you'll find i work similar hours to yourself, if not more.

peff,

I think you miss the point. Both this government and the previous one have redefined the meaning of words like"unemployment" and "job creation" numerous times.

If you are only able to find one hour per week paid work, you are officially classed as employed(very different from what the word meant 25 years ago), as are those with temporary jobs, those on training schemes etc. REAL unemployment is much higher than "official" unemployment.

As for job creation, it only takes into account those who find employment and ignores those who lose it through redundancy.
The governments claim of 20- 30 000 new, permanent jobs created every month means that John Howard must have presided over the creation of 2 or 3 million new permenant jobs in his career.
The whole country,s population has not increased by that much, let alone the working age poulation, so most claims of all time low unemployment rates and unbelieveable job growth are probably little more than worthless political dribble, which institutions like the reserve bank unfortunatly must base important desicions on.

I too are in favour of bigger government than we have been reduced to. Many privatised and public-private partenerships have failed to bring about the promised benefits, because their original function of maximising the public good became subordinate to maximising private profit. Of course some amount of surplus needs to be set aside "just in case", but to gloat over the biggest surplus in history while vital public services and infrastructure that hold our society together go to rack and ruin is utterly despcicable.