"It's not just the economy stupid." Well according to the email joke doing the rounds it is your fault.

The population of this country is 300 million.
160 million are retired.
That leaves 140 million to do the work.
There are 85 million in school.
Which leaves 55 million to do the work.
Of this there are 35 million employed by the federal government.
Leaving 15 million to do the work.
2.8 million are in the armed forces
Which leaves 12.2 million to do the work.
Take from that total the 10.8 million people who work for state and city governments.
And that leaves 1.4 million to do the work.
At any given time there are 188,000 people in hospitals.
Leaving 1,212,000 to do the work.
Now, there are 1,211,998 people in prisons.
That leaves just two people to do the work.

You and me

And there you are,

sitting on your ass,

at your computer, reading jokes.

Thanks for the article. We can't blame the government all the time.

Public servants ought be on Tap not on Top.

Good Governance depends on the equity of civilians to speak up.

We all need to speak out over the oppressive unjust spin... the obscure rantism debilitating our otherwise "inclusive" and "progressive" fair-go Aussie society.

What is true Good Governance, we might ask..?

Is good governance about having clear linkages between its institutions and community... through which citizens and groups can articulate...

a) their interests,
b) exercise their legal rights,
c) meet their obligations and (wait for it),
c) mediate their differences?

I believe it is administrations that are failing Governments and Citizens everywhere.

I believe the "silo" mentality, operating from the top downwards, inside these administrations, protects these administrations unjustly , as a one-stop-shop, through their individual "call centers".

This means the 'silo' administration creates the consequence of being 'silo'. It is not transparent. Nor is it effective as an operative for transparent governance.

These adminstrations and their protective "NO NAME" uncountable protocols nullify the productivity of good citizens, and especially as these practices are now so computer-driven, locked within "data processes", a one-sided wall, of non-effective complaint mechanisms.

Government as whole has become a clone protective non-human machine.

The shake-up needs to become vertical and horizontal, so as to clear a back-log of building apathy, where this form of structural violence presents as distruptive down at ground levels.

Civic Engagement has never been more important in modern time, as now. Any government calling for "civic engagement" can not be effective, if the aim is to openly nullify.

.

Good article and delighted to find authors who address the lack of government enforcement for "cooling off periods" within parliaments and government agencies.

In WA, many senior bureaucrats from the Department of Environment, jump camp, to work for former "clients" in the pollutant industries.

Several have gone to work for industries such as Alcoa.

"That's OK", you may say, but where is the cooling off period?

And wasn't it revealed during the CCC investigations that Wally Cox, head of the EPA intended to work part-time for business lobbyists, Burke and Grill whilst retaining his position at the EPA? Now, that's a joke!

It appears that environmental assessments are not scientific. How can they be when Ministers ignore EPA evaluations when approving industry expansions for pollutant companies?

Why, when an environmental community appeal is being considered, does the Department of Environment always defend the polluter?

The EPA's State of the Environment report reveals the ecological devastation in WA, a result of bungling bureaucrats and incompetent governments who share their beds with pollutant industries.

One need only be reminded of the recent environmental catastrophe in WA where 4,000 beautiful birds died from uncontrolled, unregulated industry pollution as a result of colluding, industry aligned departments.

The culpable DEC and the DOH have now emerged from their burrows, in a feeble attempt to defend their total lack of action in preventing this disaster.

Bureaucrats and politicians, consorting with greedy, disgraced business lobbyists have done little for the people of WA.

But then, how does one regulate the "regulators"?

Ronnie you are right, I WAS sitting on me arse reading a joke, instead of being head-down bum-up hard at work! Tch tch!

But then you was the only worker left anyway, coz I is one of the 10.8 million do-nothings who ‘bludge’ for state or local government!! (:>/

.
A good article. Pleasing to see that the big picture is being examined as the result of the Burke and Grill episode.

I think there are plenty of rather obvious things that could be done. The real issue is how on earth we progress with them.

To me things like political donations and compulsory preferential voting are so glaringly obviously wrong in a true democracy, or in any system of unbiased government. But I doubt that we have snowflakes chance of even getting these blatant rorts abolished. I mean, no one’s even suggesting that donations be abolished. All anyone is trying to do is make them a little more transparent and less obviously linked to political favours. This is like rearranging the deckchairs.

And very few people even understand what is wrong with compulsory preferential voting – a system that can and often does steel your vote and make it count where you have no intention of it counting, which of course is totally antidemocratic and in violation of the very purpose of voting. This system stays in place because it benefits the two-party system and greatly assists in keeping the smaller parties suppressed.

I think that the fundamental issue is the moral standards and expectations of the Australian community (us). If community standards are high - that is, the great bulk of individuals have high levels of integrity and maintain high moral standards in their own lives - then government will tend to reflect this or be replaced. If community standards are low, we'll get what we have now (although it could be much worse). So the questions are - what constitutes high moral standards? And what will encourage individuals to raise their standards? I'll leave it for that for now, as I'm about to leave the country for several months.

Come on wogz,

we owns NSW now so lets stack key federal seats and take the power off the Libs. Then we can boost immigration of our own kind and stop asians OK? We can knobble FoI and keep the skips in the dark, make our developers corporate body rulers of all the big housing ghettos so the scum have to vote for us, stop our tradeies working for skippies so they can't make a dollar, promise 'em services we can't deliver and watch them die out.

Saturday, NSW. November, Australia. Tomorrow, the World.

Zeich Heil Brothers!

Thanks for a great article.I think that the most important issue you raised is the corruption of democracy at the entry point of a political career- the pre-selection. When a candidate learns on day one that manipulation of the system within his own party is successful,(and necessary),what hope for future transparency and accountability is there? Too often the wrong sort of people win these games,and usually the honest will not even want to take part.
So from the outset candidates "owe" someone or some faction.What hope ethical behavior? Or accoutability to parliament or the people?
If this issue could be fixed and an ethical base established, some of your other points would follow easily. Good luck.

As a new public servant in WA when Burke and Grill came to power; I recall one of the most important early actions was the removal of the Public Service Board. Most Australians have probably forgotten that once upon a time, each and every public servant was precisely that and protected by a public service board. In other words, a Minister could not communicate with a public servant unless they went through certain procedures enforced by the Board. The politicisation of the public service across this country was a direct result of the removal of these boards. It certainly immediatly impacted on us in 1985 and by the time I left in 1998, we were simply extensions of the Ministers Office. Yet, I've never heard anyone ever question this decision and its impact is still with us today. It remains, a disgrace and for me, a continued sign that non our politicians are particularly interested in maintaining seperation of powers. I suppose we'll wake up as they slowly infringe on our judiciary - by then it will be too late!