Great stuff from the Talented Mr Fripley.

Like many, I am inspired by The Hollow Men. I hope the boys tackle the establishment's response to climate change and carbon taxes.

- are you reading this boys? Make it a good 'un! -

As a former senior public servant, I enjoyed this.

My forthcoming (I hope) article in similar vein in City news takes the mickey out of all the mnagement guff, which is realy just about getting people to work harder and harder.

That's a point I think needs emphasising. Where I worked the restraints imposed - for example "efficiency" dividends and the non-supplementation of pay increases - meant we had too few staff to do a really good job.

Anyway, an enjoyable read.

Passy>"meant we had too few staff to do a really good job."

Oh really? I think government processes are arcane and outdated. Dinosaurs rule the public service and the inbreeding supports the status quo. Suit yourself, though.

As a current public servant I really enjoyed this!

So much of it just SOOO true!

.

“During the quarrel they both died when their brains dribbled out of their ears due to the banality of their arguments.”

Aaaaah haaa hahahahah.

I can just see it now; Nelson vs Rudd on interest rates and inflation on Lateline…. dribble, dribble, dribble, eeeeoow flop (Nelson falling off his chair), errrrh flump (Rudd expiring in Tony Jones’ lap!). Ahhh yes, what a luvly mental picture (:>)

Inspired, Isn't it a pity that they aren't more studied?

“Admission into the Civil Service is indeed eagerly sought after, but it is for the unambitious, and the indolent or incapable, that it is chiefly desired.”

The Northcote Trevelyan Report

Explains a lot and nothing new (google it)

I think you'll find that people are not queueing up to get into the public service at the moment. The branch I work in (of 35 positions)currently has 11 positions vacant, and while this is probably extreme, I know that there are plenty of other branches in this department struggling to fill positions. There are very few appropriately skilled people to fill the senior positions and the rates of pay for junior positions can't match what is on offer in the private sector.

Those in the private sector that whinge about government processes and the time taken to get outcomes should realise that we need people to carry out the work before we can meet their expectations. The more you run down the public service as a profession, the less likley that capable people will want to work in it. And then the private sector will suffer even further as government struggles to carry out its functions. I know of one case where a planning department had only two people to deal with a whole regions applications.

Phil Matimien “Those in the private sector that whinge about government processes and the time taken to get outcomes should realise that we need people to carry out the work before we can meet their expectations.”

My problem with the public sector is not that you need more bodies to do the work.

My problem is to question what “work” should actually be done in the first place.

Smaller government = less red tape = fewer bureaucrats = lower taxes = more personal discretionary income and more personal discretion.

Col,

I would suggest that there is a good reason why there is work to do, and that is because we want to try to avoid problems occurring in the future. In the area that I work, the lack of people to do work has resulted in all sorts of problems across the country including lead pollution at Esperance and Mount Isa, contamination of water courses, gas explostions, destruction of valuable history. There have been very few people to carry out inspections, ensure compliance etc, and unfortunately the cost-cutting and poor process in the industries involved has led to very poor maintenance and hence pollution and disruption.

The community tells us all the time that they expect to be protected from these sort of problems, and we would be remiss in our duties if we didn't give new and existing developments the scrutiny they deserve. To cut the red tape is fine, as long as it doesn't result in 'quickie' decisions that come back to haunt everyone in the future. Because, as we have seen, the first port of call for blame is the government department involved. When we can trust industry to do a better job of their own compliance and maintenance, and not put cost-cutting ahead of their obligations, perhaps we can cut the red tape.

continued..

As for taxes Col, I'm happy paying taxes because, as a member of a society where there are a large number of low income earners who need help and have been bypassed by our so-called boom, there is a need to provide for all members of society. That's what tax is for...I would quite happily pay an extra few cents in the dollar to put towards health, educations, roads, railways etc, because it will benefit me and many others in the long term. A cup-of-coffee tax cut for you and me, means billios of dollars that could otherwise go to something worthwhile for the country.

This idea that tax cuts solve problems is quite misguided. It might make those selfish members of society out there feel warm and fuzzy inside, but it certainly doesn't provide much for the individuals that really need help. And let's face it, there are people out there who genuinely do need help, for whatever reason. Some people can't even get a home at the moment(about 100,000 I think at present) because the market has taken both mortgages and rents out of their reach. What about them Col? Should we just let them fall by the wayside?

I think that's your problem right there Phil. Your mentality that there is no one to fill the spaces that are apparently vacant. You are probably shutting out scores, perhaps hundreds of potential applicants who you and your -I assume- highly contrived selection process doesn't deem acceptable. It's probably true that there is a lot of political screening going on in the sense that, "this person is not right because they wouldn't 'fit in' to the system. They are not bureacrats like us."

Steel, I agree the selection process is cumbersome and in many ways discourages a lot of applicants, but it's there to stop someone just picking their mate for a job, rather than the best person. It's not perfect, in fact it's a pain in the backside, because it stops us filing jobs quickly.

However, unlike private companies, government has to justify the expense of public money (already had Col whinging about paying taxes) so the pressure is on for a documented and fair system. The first thing pollies do if they can't find a paper trail justifying expenditure is to go public with all sorts of cheap vote-grabbing statements about government inneffiency. So you can't have it both ways. If you want a fair process you need accountability, and to get accountability you need a system that stops nepotism

Phil Matimein “avoid problems occurring in the future.”

No problems with that.

However, there is a point at which the cost of ensuring that future devours the present.

And presuming a government bureaucrat has some crystal ball better than those involved in an endeavour is foolhardy to say the least.

“As for taxes Col, I'm happy paying taxes because, as a member of a society where there are a large number of low income earners who need help”

That is a view, not one I share. ‘low income earners’ also contribute to the tax burden, as they should.

However, government and the bureaucrats it employs, which pretends it can ‘level’ the economic outcomes of individuals obviously misunderstands the meaning of the word ‘individual’ (be they low or high income earners).

“This idea that tax cuts solve problems is quite misguided.”

The idea that government achieves anything by taxation which cannot be achieved by individuals is a myth.

Some time ago I presented here the comparison of comparative taxation rates (as % of GDP) to the statistical measurement of “life satisfaction”

all data from the web site http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php

the correlation between tax and life satisfaction was -0.31868479

in other words a negative correlation, the higher the tax, the less satisfying the level of life satisfaction.

Whilst you might be “happy paying taxes” it suggests most people are not.

Remember, government and its bureaucrats are there to serve the electorate, not to direct them.

“unlike private companies, government has to justify the expense of public money”

The share holders of private company have far greater influence over how their invested funds are deployed than any tax payer has over the largesse of governments (Victoria’s Tri-Continental Banking disaster comes to mind),

tax payers funds wasted in a government orgy of funding extreme risk.

As for nepotism, what people do with their own money is up to them.
What people do with public funds should be subject to greater scrutiny and inspection because it is, after all, ‘public’ and not ‘private’ money.