What? Labor Govenment stuffing up the budget? That cannot be right
They stuffed the NSW again and the Qld again? Nah that cannot happens.
The problem is, all Labor governments are big spenders, and leaves problems for future generation to clean up.
There is also the intrinsic problem that all Labor governments like large public services, this is because people on government jobs likes to vote Labor, because they have more job protection, even if they are doing nothing. They are also forced to be a member of the Public Sector Union, who then donates money back to the ALP.
So by employing large public services, Labor will have more support, and will have more “”taxpayer” money to spend on the next election. The problem is by spending all the money, they have no money left for transport, health, education etc. And we all suffer.
The next big spender – Kevin Rudd, who seem to spend more than thousands of drunken sailors. Lets spend $42 billion on rolling out a new internet ….. we will do it ourselves (privatise telstra, more public servants). What would telecommunication companies knows about telecommunication, Telstra? Optus? Vodafone? I Kevin Rudd knows how to run a telecommunication company!

Exactly! Unfortunately the "Smart State" bureaucracy even more inefficient and bungling than ever.

The response to Public Sector shortcomings is not to try to fix things but to add another layer. So you get administrators on top of administrators, lots of think tanks, meetings, conferences, net working opportunities, gloriously mismanaged schemes and untold waste. And they're all gonna vote Anna next election to maintain their cosy status quo ....

Welcome to Blighs World!

That the Institute of Public Affairs would argue against public spending is about as obvious as the daily rising of the sun. The tricks in the IPA’s reports are the deliberate choice of the period after the cuts (so-called “reforms”) of the 1990s, the failure to appreciate the rebuilding that state Labor governments had to do after the damage of their Liberal and National predecessors and the disregard of population growth, inflation and economic growth. The IPA did a similar hatchet job in the 1990s providing the subsequent Victorian Liberal government with its destructive agenda. It has done two reports this year on the same old theme. I have provided chapter and verse of the way the first report misleads at:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/11/02/newspoll-57-43-to-labor-in-victoria-2/#comments

The more recent report has the same faults, as will the next one, and the one after that. It is my hope that the experience of Victoria from 1992 to 1999 was sufficient to innoculate a whole generation against future infection by the ideo-illogical IPA.

I continually hear about this great boom that has occurred in both Queensland public sector numbers and their pay but as a Queensland public sector employee, I have not seen this myself so if the author would provide the official figures it would be nice. Admittedly, I work at the coalface, not in admin.

While teachers recently won a pay rise, these booming salaries he speaks of just don't appear to be a fact anywhere I have seen.

Certainly, public sector employees as a percentage of the total labour force have significantly declined over the last few decades, while higher levels of unemployment and underemployment have become entrenched.

A problem faced by Public Services is that there are too many layers but with little accountability. Jokingly I would often say that management seemed to all have Masters degrees in the "lack of decision making". They will tell you that there is a need for checks and balances. This I do not disagree with but as an example I will explain further.
Coming from the private sector into the public service as a consultant I asked a simple question. This was, "At what stage does a recommendation become a decision.
The answer I was given was “when the process was completed”.
I replied you missed the question. Again, I asked at what stage a recommendation becomes a decision. This executive manager thought for a moment and replied, "I don't know"
Here is one example of the problems. At that time, I was working in Industrial Relations and Industry Training, which required me to go out into the field to try to resolve a problem or a dispute.
Not employed at executive level my reports could only be recommendations.
I explained the reality was, I and other field officers, had made the decisions, as the department had no other information.
Hence, the system then required forwarding reports to a supervisor. In my case, knowing my work, he would sign; send it on to the next level (boxes) where it may be signed again, and so on, until there were no more boxes, when it became a decision.

continued.

Cutting out the many levels; employing the appropriate skills and experience, would reduce costs, and gain better use of its skilled and experienced base.
Officers faced frustration when promoted because of their knowledge and experience, provided no input to policy development and finished just higher paid clerks. I believe this is an insult to them and a loss to the government of the types of skills that were really needed.
Restructuring frequently meant getting rid of your skill base, employing juniors, to reduce wage costs, sometimes, on the basis of entitlement federal government subsidies for employing trainees, etc. yet failed to understand why there backlogs and bad decisions.
I entered Public Service as a Consultant; coming from the private sector with my own businesses in engineering building and construction, manufacturing and consultancy I encouraged respect for the worker, whether blue collar or white collar. Your company needs them. Without them, you have no company. In addition, companies that give no loyalty to its employees can hardly expect loyalty in return. It is a two-way concept and we need to keep that in perspective.
You still need your checks and balances but not just for the sake of having them. I believe I did well in my field earning the respect of both the worker and the employer. After being retired since 1994, I still meet people who tell me of the respect of the public for my work. That I believe is a compliment and proves my view. It would have been easy to just write out breaches and take court action, but I found that sitting down with the clients and discussing the problems in non-threatening manners got better results. During my time, I never had to resort to breaches but was able successfully to help people understand the issues and resolve them in a manner that each party could continue to work together in a friendly manner.
Professori_au

The fact is this lady is simply incompetent for the job at hand.

With her and her predecessor, ‘back flip beaty’s reputation for failed ventures and wasted billions, we now face the real prospect of business, both large and small, loosing what confidence they still have in the government in power and, like it or not, the other side has F-all to offer as they would have been in power several terms ago if they did.

So what now!

We have the failed walkway along the Brisbane River, the failed ‘North bank’ project and now, the failed traverston dam project.

Don’t you think it would have been wise to get permission first, rather than spend $600 million +, then ask!

Labor governments just don’t cut the mustard when it comes to planning.

Grocery watch, the solar debacle, the changes in the insulation project. These are all projects that have damaged business confidence and I seriously doubt whether businesses in the future will even both responding to government projects for fear of being left ‘high and dry’.

I think perhaps the best stimulus package we could have is for these fools to resign their offices and let the others back in.

Now as to whether or not they can do any better, ‘who knows, but surely they can’t do any worse and, can we afford to let these fools loose for any longer?

We already have inherited debts for the next generation or two! Which from a federal level has taken just two short years, not terms, YEARS!

this is complete nonsense, the reasons for the budget blowout is schizophrenic economic ideology permeatating throughout the western world. its the cut taxes and increase and improve services mantra of voodoo economics. it is crippling california and it will destroy qld.
reagonomics or supply side economics of cutting taxes to stimulate growth combined with expansiory spending to meet the societies desires and want leads to disaster
we cut property taxes when we are experiencing rapid population growth. it does not lead to increase in housing affordability, but it leads to a transfer of revenue from public services.

Human societies are problem solving organisations. As problems occur, they increase in complexity to resolve problems. Big government is simply a sign that our society has many problems to solve. Unfortunately what this problem solving approach fails to anticipate is that increasing complexity as a problem solving response reaches a point of declining marginal returns. Arguably that is the point we are at in many areas, for example the billions of dollars in road infrastructure to reduce congestion. The other impact of complexity is that it requires significant investment just to maintain the status quo. In summary what we are facing is a situation where the costs of complexity outweigh the the benefits. Once we reach that point it is likely that society will collapse to a lower level of complexity, whether we want it to or not.

"The fact is this lady is simply incompetent for the job at hand."

I couldn't agree more rehctub, though obviously for different reasons than those that you advance.

"We already have inherited debts for the next generation or two! Which from a federal level has taken just two short years, not terms, YEARS!"

This is typical hysteria which fails to comprehend the most basic functions of our modern economy.

Whay would you say rehctub, if I told you that the most successful 3 decades in Australia's history saw 1 single budget surplus - the rest were in deficit.

What would would you say if I told you that Robert Menzies never presided over a single budget surplus?

Probably nothing intelligent I suppose.

What would would you say if I told you that Robert Menzies never presided over a single budget surplus?
Fozz,
Well, who did ?

Arthur Fadden (Country party) ran a single surplus in 1951. Another surplus was not seen for 20 years. But as far as strong growth and full employment (real full employment that is – around 2% not 5%) those years were outstandingly successful.

The manic drive for permanent and ever-growing surpluses is a relatively recent phenomenon. It is also unrealisable. Federal budget surpluses are manifested as private sector deficit.

Slasher,
Absolutely.
I would add this is yet another pro-business think tank justification/ political manipulation to have a go.

I wouldn't mind if they this author or think tanks in general stated all the facts in context and and let them show the conclusion.

Broad numbers don't necessarily prove anything. It is pure political dogma to look at numbers and declare too many. This may well be so but where's the analysis?

Need I point out that Queensland is a far more spread out state than any other (WA has pockets. this factor alone means more (branch) staff. (Regardless of who is in power).

Rather this worthless excuse for an argument.
He Starts with a conclusion and then makes unsupported assumptions to justify that conclusion. Number games mean nothing except to an accountant not real people.

Simple minds, simple solutions hide a complex issue and a pro conservative intentions of the author.

cheers for that Fozz,
twenty years after 1951 would get Billy McMahon into the picture, couldn't possibly have been Goaf Whitlam. Wasn't he the one who got the country onto the track we're on now?

Fozz; What would would you say if I told you that Robert Menzies never presided over a single budget surplus?

Well, considering I was bone in 60 and only got interested in politics around the late 70's, no idear!

BUT! What I do know is that when Krudd was handed the keys, there was plenty of confidence in the business world, plenty of job security and money in the bank.

Who knows what's in stall for the next two years!

Another classic display of incompitence is the traviston dam debarcle.

What fool, in their right mind would buy the land, spend almost $100millon on studies, then, ask permision fo the dam to be built?

Furthermore, who is going to buy this land, at market value?

Not only has she bought this land, but now she is going to sell off our assetts to fund her and beaties stuff ups.

Someone has to get rid of this women before we are completely broke.

rehctub,

You are missing a few major issues and trying to load the problems onto the wrong people.

In the intervening time between Menzies era and today, the gold standard went, feral Capitalism has launched, Tarrifs have come off, the market place has been Globalized, private debt has spiraled exponentially and the laise faire capitalists came to the fore etc.

None of these or the an anticipated (world wide) capitalist driven derivative credit crash, and reduction of the money pit(mining crash) were her problem how?

She should have saved? oh yer with every one holding out their hand screaming "I want, I want". Let's look at tunnels and other Conservative BCC driven expenditures where do you think they got the money , govt guarentees, Hospital upgrades, waiting lists out sourcing, teachers pays being so much lower than interstate, teacher drain et al.

Major projects go like that that's the system. If they didn't the federal environment department would need to be HUGE. The projects might then crash latter same result.

I didn't back the dam but I'll bet when you start getting water bills upto 40% more you'll scream like an injured Banchee.

She is well short of perfect but so would the conservatives if they were in power. Look at who they are in detail..

Examinator,
another thing that's developed in the years since Menzies is fools batting for fools.