I think this is a good article. If the Government is serious about reform, it doesn't just have to do new things, it also has to do its common, everyday tasks better.

To take Nick's idea to its logical conclusion, why do we have States and Federal Governments duplicating each other, why isn't there a common set of regulations across the country (currently, there's a plethora of regs in any area you care to look at), why does small business have to do all the drudge receipt-keeping work to make the GST work, etc?

The country should wake up to the fact that this mindless activity is just crimping productivity growth - ie if people's abilities were focussed on doing value-adding work, we'd all eventually be more prosperous. A lot of people are just filling filing cabinets with junk. That isn't going to help anyone much.

Nicholas this a topic also close to my heart,but don't hold your breath for reform.Our Govts waste billions of dollars and just reap more taxes for even less results in terms of infrastructure and servces than we had 40yrs ago.Our Public Service structure both Federally and at State levels are bloated,efficient and wasteful.The more tax they get,the more inefficient they become.

We had economic rationalism for the private sector,however the public sector is just a protected species that just puts more regulation in front of business and wonders why it moves off shore while our balance of payments deficit just accelerates.

We are the stupid country with our headpiece filled with awe.When the resouces boom stops,we will be "The Hollow Men."

Howard is a failed lawyer and that shows in his production of more pages of legislation than any other government. Great for failed lawyers, bad for human beings.

It seems lately, the last 11 years, that new legislation is draftedin a toliet by one or two people and then thrown at Parliament to be passed with gag motions to ensure such law is passed in days rather than actually have a debate and amend the bills to suit human beings rather than lawyers.

Do remember in particular the terrorist legislation. Rushed through by Ruddock and Howard on the basis that it was urgent whilst acknowledging it wasn't as good as it should be. Also with promises of later amendment. Anyone heard of those amendments? I didn't think so. Spaghetti is the flavour of our law over the last decade, Federally and State wise.

Don't get me wrong, the State Labor Premiers and Chief Ministers are exactly the same. In Peter Beattie's case, even to the extent of being a failed lawyer.

Why do I call them failed lawyers? Simply because they don't practice law which is what the were educated to do.

Very good article mate.

every government has only one priority: staying in government. the rest of what they say is pure sales talk. if they could do absolutely nothing, they would, for they are already on top. they know every time they do something, they lose votes. pruning the public service is an election loser, for there are many votes in the public service.

if you don't like what they do, what can you do about it? practically nothing. you are born into a society ruled from the top down, there are no citizen initiative methods to restrain or direct government. politicians will say we can vote them out. true- but replacing dum with dee changes nothing, the politicians guild is bipartisan about the structure and methods of government.

no political party will bring democracy, the electorate must demand it. in the end, if you don't like the way you are ruled,

"you get the government you deserve."

One way to improve regulations is to introduce legislation that specifies results rather than process. Process can be specified in terms of rules of conduct but rather than the details of how to do things. That is we specify general rules to govern processes and specific targets that says what it is we wish to achieve and how we know if we have achieved it.

The Reserve Bank is a good way of going about things. We tell the Reserve Bank what it is we wish to achieve in terms of inflation but we do not tell them how to do it.

With Industrial Legislation we might for example say that we want to achieve the something like.

A level of industrial disputation that results in less than x hours lost in disputation and in y number of court cases on unfair dismissal claims. That is, we think of measures that reflect what it is we want to achieve then leave it up to the parties - guided by the government - to work out the best way to achieve these goals.

On the tax rules we could perhaps specify that all income spent on private consumption be taxed at x%.

On land planning we specify that each community shall have x% of open space with y% of community facilities and z number of land usage disputes.

On education we might specify that 99% of all children by the age of 16 shall have a measurable minimum reading skill.

By making our goals explicit and measurable we simplify things, and open up ways of doing things differently.

Process abuses can be handled by more general laws more along the lines of you will not deceive and you will be transparent in what you do.

That is, our law makers could concentrate on enunciating what it is they want to achieve and then tell us how we will know if we have achieved it.

Fickle Pickle, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

There's nothing like a target to focus one's mind, particularly if you're part of a large group that's heading in a common overall direction. The trick to getting this to work, of course, is to enthuse people by giving them the sense of ownership of finding their own pathway to achieving the goal, as well as giving them the opportunity to contribute to the campaign.

There have been plenty of campaigns that have worked in the past like "Uncle Sam needs you" and the drafting of soldiers to the AIF in WW1 etc. Maybe suchlike could be adapted to addressing seemingly intractable problems like poverty in Aboriginal communities (so that one day no child will live in poverty) etc.

It's important to make the target simple to understand, one that is attainable through a little effort, and one that is seen as being eminently fair and reasonable by the public.