The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Ideas the engine of new growth > Comments

Ideas the engine of new growth : Comments

By Craig Emerson, published 12/12/2008

There is nothing more powerful, it seems, than the power of a good idea created by a vivid imagination.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Good on you Craig Emerson. You are one of the bright lights of the New Labor Party, and you should consider this New Idea. The function of ideas, is to harness the collective brains of a society, and not oppress the creative members of it. If I may be so bold as to say that a lot of past Labor Governments, and some State Governments, have been closet Liberal Party Governments, introducing the Liberal Party agenda, of creeping fascism, to the silent claps of the Liberals, would you be offended. You have shown by a series of articles, that you are not a shackled ideologue.

How is this for an Idea?. Since the Liberal Party, has been the driving force for government by lawyers for lawyers, why don’t you start to restore balance to the economy, and stop the Lawyers Party, which is still in government, despite an overwhelming vote of no confidence last election, by having your leader publicly repudiate the Australia Act 1986. You and Kevin Rudd are both too intelligent to accept it can be legitimate, even though it was passed with Labor Party Support. It cannot both continue the Commonwealth and abolish it in the one Act. It cannot repudiate our Christian Heritage, and continue it. It cannot authorize a break up of the Federation, without a referendum, and the idea that it can should be rejected.

In 1984, the Labor Government referred a question to the Australian People. Question two was seeking approval for an Act to allow the Commonwealth and States, to voluntarily refer powers to each other. It was refused, but the Australia Act 1986, did it anyway. The politics of consensus, all the rage in 1984, was not enough. The idea that Australia is a United States, has held back progress.

Without a fully functional Federation, with a totally independent judiciary, drawn not from the Lawyers Party, but from the electorate, the Federation has collapsed. The ideas of New Labor, that the States are superfluous, in an age of fast transport, are commendable. Keep up the good work
Posted by Peter the Believer, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 5:36:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, you wrote; “What you need is better regulation, not more regulation.”

We certainly need better regulation! And part of that is to make sure that it applies equally to all those that it is supposed to apply to, so that the small player isn’t penalised more-so than the big player because their cases are easier to deal with and the big boys might just get their legal people onto you and cause a great ruckus and drain on public servants’ time and energies that could be spent elsewhere, so that everyone knows what the law entails and can be confident that breaking the law will very likely result in significant penalty, etc.

In some instances better regulation may well mean more regulation, especially with ever-more pressures being exerted by rapid population growth.

As far as the intelligence of regulators goes, yes I agree, it sometimes seems that the people involved are not the best people for the job. But do you think it would be any better if the whole kaboodle was privatised?

I see good and bad, competent and incompetent people in all walks of life. I’ve certainly encountered plenty of dodgy sods in private enterprise as well as the public service.

“What you need is for some common sense to apply”

Of course! And one of the most basic components of commonsense is to have a resource regime that matches the tasks, instead of one that falls a million miles short and necessitates all sorts of short-cuts, blind-eying of certain activities and differential treatment…and ends up giving the public the impression that the middle managers and officers on the ground are hopeless, rather than their political masters.

“What you need is good judgement, but sadly that is commonly missing
and it’s not due to a shortage of money, but a shortage of intelligence.”

Where would you find a much better standard of commonsense or intelligence?
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 10:04:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig” The answer is getting government to undertake their duties properly by matching resources with tasks delegated to their public servants.”

Many years ago I got involved in training a group of project managers in the finer points of project budget management in the IT industry.

One question they asked me was

‘What happens when we are given a woefully inadequate monetary budget by the line managers of the projects they were expected to manage/implement ‘ ( similar to the manner you are basically suggesting)….

My reply was simple,

You decline the role because – if you accept an inadequately resourced role, you are setting yourself up to fail.

I offer the same advise to every well intentioned person, regardless of their level in an organization or the nature of the organization they work in.

Failing in a role because the budgeted resources are the product of someone else’s incompetence or ignorance shows a shorted sightedness of epic proportions.

Personally, I always place myself where I can always afford to decline such a poisoned chalice.

It comes down to basic honesty, not only of those with the budget but those setting the budget. I did a lot of work in recent years with a couple of government departments, they were, in budget terms, more deceitful than private industry.

I presently contract to a privately owned group of companies. A couple of the owners work in the business. They have a far more “personally critical” interest in the budget process and obviously expect absolute transparency in its preparation, far more than bureaucrats employed to manage the 'politics' of doing something more than what it achieves.

Re “ (I’ll just let that silly Xmas stuff slide by unnoticed if I can).”

Watch out or we will rename you Uriah… but best wishes for the New Year too :- )
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 10:36:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Of course! And one of the most basic components of commonsense is to have a resource regime that matches the tasks*

Ludwig, all the many incidents I am thinking of, had little to do
with resources, more to do with the attitude of some public
servants, given their monopoly like situation of enforcing their
interpretation of the rules.

Its usually not those higher up the food chain, but here in WA
we are a mere branch office. Some of those people need a basic
course of how to deal with the public. When they try the big
stick approach, because of their monopoly situation, is when I see
red. Common sense and basic reasoning skills matter!

In private enterprise, there is usually the choice of going to the
opposition, not so with many Govt Deparments.

In other words, the problem is attitude. Attitude by those
usually lower down the food chain, throwing their weight around.
I became extremely good at dealing with these idiots, for every time
I bypassed them and went to their bosses, reason in the end
prevailed. It just took some huge effort at times.

One of them once tried to threaten me, that she had the power to
close my business down. I responded by threatening to expose her
on every tv channel news and front page of the newspaper. It worked
like a charm :) Public servants are nervous about anything
which rocks their career path, it pays to remember that.

The thing is, nearly all these things were about basically
trivial issues, where these people thought that they could throw
their weight around.

In the end, one can become overwhelmed by the sheer volume of them,
that is why I doubt I would ever bother to open a business employing
lots of people, ever again. I also know of a number of major
business ventures, where investors have simply decided that its not
worth the bother and have gone elsewhere. Next we'll be back to
job creation schemes.

The public service should facilitate private enterprise, not act
as a major hinderance
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 10:54:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“You decline the role because – if you accept an inadequately resourced role, you are setting yourself up to fail.”

Col, if everyone was to decline the role, where would that leave us? It would leave us with no regulation and therefore open slather in regard to whatever particular area we might be talking about.

That would be failure...big time. Doing a job with inadequate resources doesn't mean it will be a failure, just not as good as it should be.

What would happen if the wisest people declined? The quality of the regulatory service would be even worse than it would be with a woeful budget but good people to maximise efficiency.

A half-hearted regulatory effort, even if it is unfairly administered, is still a whole lot better than having no regulation.

In fact, that is a very good point to consider, for all those who rightly or wrongly feel that the standard of government regulation is poor; what would happen if it was entirely absent? Would it be better or worse?

I think in most instances, most people could see that it would be worse, when viewed from a holistic long-term perspective.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 5:29:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Ludwig…

What you are suggesting is “compromise and mediocrity” can produce an acceptable solution or stand-in for acceptable performance.

On this I will strongly disagree with you.

The point is poorly prepared, staffed and executed regulation provides no safe guards but costs the community heaps of time and frustration as individuals try to comply.

If it cannot be achieved properly, it is better it not be attempted…

I would observe, no one is remembered for climbing half way up Everest, same no one deserves being remembered for a half hearted part-implementation of any regulatory process.

“I think in most instances, most people could see that it would be worse, when viewed from a holistic long-term perspective.”

I think most people would consider it a waste of their expropriated taxes, as viewed in both the personal, immediate view as well as in an holistic long term perspective.

Remember, government and the civil servants are there to serve the needs of the tax-paying electorate, not to direct them.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 6:33:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy