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