... or at least on the podium.

This data was so unexpected that I need to cross-check it several times. But it seems that in terms of numbers of public servants per capita of population, Australia is a world leader.

Here are some of the numbers...

USA - 63 public servants per 1000 people.
Japan - 42 / 1000
France - 85 / 1000
Germany - 77 / 1000
Italy 68 / 1000
UK - 115 / 1000
Canada - 105 / 1000

and ...

Australia - 137 / 1000

yea us!

But we were pipped at the post by Russia at 153 / 1000.

Just some explanations and caveats. This includes public servants from all branches of government in each country. So in Australia, US etc it includes Federal, State and Local government employees. Also some statistics aren't directly compatible due to different definitions. For example Russia has large numbers employed in State Owned Enterprises which significantly inflates their numbers.

But overall, the above figures (based primarily on data from the International Labour Organisation and the IMF/ World Bank) give a reasonably fair assessment of the apparent bloating within the various Australian Governments.

And its getting worse. Federal employees have risen by somewhere between 25 and 35% depending on how you do the numbers and the costs of those employees by more than that.

If something can't go on forever, it won't.

Interesting figures, mhaze.

Do you have a breakdown of what's included in the 137 per 1000? For example, does that count teachers, nurses, police, and local government staff, or only administrative civil servants?

Cross-country comparisons can swing quite a bit depending on whether public healthcare and education staff are included. Without that breakdown it's hard to know whether we're looking at service delivery structure or administrative expansion.

If you've got the functional split, that would make the comparison much clearer.

The ILO definition includes...."Non-market non-profit institutions controlled by government (e.g., many public schools or hospitals if non-market). So public schools and therefore teachers but not private. Public hospitals and their staff but not private.

The issue is, are these applied across all countries and sets of numbers? That appears to be the case. Even if there are errors at the margins, that doesn't change the overall trend of the numbers and could potentially make them worse for Australia's government structures.

Thanks for clarifying the ILO definition, mhaze.

If public schools and hospitals are included, that makes sense of why the numbers are relatively high across most developed countries. It's effectively counting public service delivery, not just administrative civil servants.

The comparability question is still the key one though. Different countries deliver health, education and other services through very different mixes of public, private and quasi-public institutions. Even if the ILO definition is consistent, the underlying structures aren't necessarily comparable.

For example, if one country delivers most healthcare publicly while another relies more heavily on private providers, the first will show higher public employment even if the overall scale of government activity is similar.

So the interesting question isn't just the headline number, but how much of it reflects service delivery versus administrative overhead.

We must differentiate between Public Servants & bureaucrats & it's the latter of which there's an epidemic that requires reducing the numbers via natural attrition ! Also, the salaries are beyond any moral justification in comparison to the actual importance or requirement of those positions. Many aren't actually up to the job when we look back at mismanagement & budget blow-outs etc. Those who should & could weed out the under performers but don't should be charged with dereliction of duties & either demoted or be straight-out dismissed without millions in compensation etc.
Merit must be the nr 1 prerequisite for high end positions in the Public Service bureaucracy ! Labor & LNP have proven not to take merit serious so, ON could possibly achieve some draining of that swamp if voters stop being so stupidly Party orientated !

"why the numbers are relatively high across most developed countries"

I only looked at G20 countries. There's not much point comparing us to Botswana.

As to the nurses, teachers, they make up a a smaller percentage of the total (around 15%) so, as I said, allowing for differences in the definitions doesn't change the actual rankings.

From where I sit, it shows a nation that is has a bloated public sector and not much inclination to fix (indeed it has perverse incentives to worsen it) it even though it is dragging the country down.

The G20 comparison makes sense as a starting point, mhaze.

The interpretive step is the interesting part though. A higher share of public employment doesn't necessarily imply "bloat" by itself. It can also reflect how services are delivered. Countries that provide health, education, policing and local services predominantly through public institutions will naturally show higher public employment than those relying more on private providers or quasi-public entities.

You mentioned teachers and nurses being around 15% of the total. That suggests a significant share of the number reflects frontline service delivery rather than administrative bureaucracy.

To demonstrate "bloat" in the sense you're using it, the key evidence would be that administrative or regulatory layers have expanded disproportionately relative to service delivery. The aggregate employment figure alone can't really tell us that.

"That suggests a significant share of the number reflects frontline service delivery rather than administrative bureaucracy."

It doesn't suggest that at all. It shows that the majority of the people in the numbers are bureaucrats, back-office staff from the PM dept through DFAT, the Federal Education Dept, all the state equivalents and down to local council office staff. These front line people you want to concentrate on are a fraction of them.

When doing these type of broad-brush international comparison, its come with the caveat that national numbers are usually not directly comparable as I said from the get-go. But it also comes with the understanding that differences over the broad area tend to even out. And when the differences are so stark as per the numbers I showed, minor anomalies are neither here nor there.

Still if you just don't want the numbers to be true, don't want to believe they show a significant problem in the Australia polis, then concentrating on the minutia is definitely the way to go.

mhaze,

I'm not suggesting the numbers aren't true. (Why would I want them to be false when it could mean that we have more, or better resourced, public services?) I'm simply questioning the inference being drawn from them.

The point is simply that an aggregate public employment figure doesn't tell us how that workforce is distributed between service delivery and administrative roles.

You mentioned earlier that teachers and nurses alone account for around 15%. Once you add police, emergency services, defence personnel and other operational staff, the share of frontline roles becomes a substantial part of the total.

If the claim is that most of the workforce consists of bureaucratic or back-office roles, that would require a breakdown of occupational categories rather than the overall employment number. Without that breakdown, the aggregate figure can't really demonstrate administrative "bloat" one way or the other.

Australian population increased by 8.72% between 2012 and 2025.

Australia Federal Public Service increased by 30.6% in the same period.

But not bloated?

If you think the higher numbers in the public sector gives measurably or even un-measurably better service then so be it.... a majority of one.

mhaze,

That's a different metric from the international comparison you started with, but it's a more concrete one.

Population growth isn't necessarily the right benchmark for public sector staffing though. Government workload is driven by programs, regulation, compliance requirements, defence, welfare administration and so on, none of which scale neatly with population.

For example, the last decade included major expansions in areas like biosecurity, cyber security, NDIS administration, aged care oversight and pandemic response capacity. Those functions increase staffing requirements independently of population growth.

So the relevant question isn't simply whether the APS grew faster than the population, but whether the expansion reflects new policy responsibilities or inefficient administrative layering. That requires looking at where the growth actually occurred.

Under the Coalition the number of "private consultants" to government mushroomed to around 54,000. The Labor Government has reduced that number significantly, delivering $1 billion in savings 2024/25, by reducing spending on bloated private consultants, contractors, and the labour hire outfits.

mhaze, conveniently leaves out Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland

Whats the point, Australia is the best country in the world, and its partly due to a hard working public sector that we enjoy such a high standard of living. On the mhaze list which of those countries would you prefer to live in before Australia?

Quality of life survey;

Beyond the essential ideas of broad access to food, housing, quality education, health care and employment, quality of life also may include intangibles such as job security, political stability, individual freedom and environmental quality. Through all phases of life, these countries are seen as treating their citizens well.

AUSTRALIA rates 8th in the world behind Denmark. and 5th in the Best Countries Overall. The leading countries mostly have relatively large public services, providing just that, public services, such as health care, education, transport, infrastructure, security, law and order, all that the knockers don't mention.

Paul1405,
Yes, the hands-on Public servants are of great value to society, it's the bureaucrats, those nameless, faceless seat polishers on huge salaries who remain unaccountable to their stuff-ups who are the real obstacles to a Nation.
I used to make the same mistake as many make by referring to all of them as Public Servants however, I've come to differentiate between Public Servants & bureaucrats !

Indy,

Just as in private industry, there has to be a management structure, the public service is no different. Any large organisation, private or public, will have a bureaucracy in place, these are generally the top decision makers. No large organisation can function without a management structure in place. AND, like in all organisations there are good employees, there are the lazy, the dishonest, the incompetent. The police force is public service, there are bad coppers, lazy, corrupt, dishonest, there is a bureaucracy, the top brass, does than mean the police force is totally incompetent? An army needs it Privates, but it also needs its Generals as well.

You have claimed on this forum that 95% of PS should be sacked, do you still support such outrageous nonsense? 95% of coppers, nurses, teachers, the ones who facilitate your aged welfare payments, the people who pick uo your garbage.

I understand you personally had a bad experience with your menial employment in the PS, I believe you were dismissed for incompetence, during the Whitlam years, and have hated the PS, Gough and the Labor party ever since. You should remember on which side your bread is buttered.

It just comes down to priorities. In a nation that is weighed down under mounting debt as far as the eye can see, one might think the priority would be to make the various levels of government as lean as possible.

Instead we have the usual suspects touting for ever bigger government. Strangely those same people will excoriate the previous government for increasing debt levels.

I guess they can comfort themselves in their beliefs on two fronts. First they can assert that the inordinately high levels of public employees provides a premium service. Of course that can never be measured so they can make the assertion in the knowledge that it can never be checked. Secondly they can comfort themselves in the knowledge that all of these people can be paid for by just picking a little more money off the money-tree out the back of parliament.

At a time when the private sector is using AI to improve productivity of the clerical classes, the Australian governments at all levels are increasing taxes on that same private sector in order to add to the national burden that is the bloated public sector.

How do you go bankrupt? Slowly, then suddenly.

When we get to the suddenly part, the usual suspects will look around askant.

Debt levels and public sector size aren’t necessarily the same question though, mhaze.

//In a nation that is weighed down under mounting debt as far as the eye can see…//

Countries can run relatively large public sectors and maintain low debt depending on tax structures and spending priorities.

//...the national burden that is the bloated public sector.//

The numbers you originally cited show that public employment is relatively high. What they don’t show by themselves is that this is the cause of fiscal stress or declining productivity.

//...the private sector is using AI to improve productivity of the clerical classes,...//

That may well be happening, but the same question still applies: where exactly has the growth in the public workforce occurred? Without a breakdown of roles it’s hard to tell whether the increase reflects administrative expansion or additional service delivery.

Oh good. Back to JD misrepresenting what I said.

Nowhere did I say that the rise in the APS caused the massive debt.

The debt exists because of a generation of mismanagement of governments state and federal back to 2013. The bloating of the APS is PART of that, and getting the bloating under control is PART of the solution.

Just hoping that the bloating gives us better service isn't part of the solution.

Oh Good. mhaze back to pretending I intentionally misrepresented him despite his clarification doing nothing to strengthen his position.

//Nowhere did I say that the rise in the APS caused the massive debt.//

Fair enough, mhaze. I didn't mean to suggest you were claiming it was the sole cause.

//The bloating of the APS is PART of that, and getting the bloating under control is PART of the solution.//

That's really the point I've been questioning. The figures you've cited show the APS has grown faster than population, but they don't tell us whether that growth reflects unnecessary administrative expansion or additional policy responsibilities and programs.

Without a breakdown of where the growth occurred, it's difficult to determine whether it represents "bloat" in the sense you're using the term.

Trumpster,

I wont criticise the public service, until it reaches a point where it is forced to employ YOU! There must be a limit! BTW, have you ever been in public employ?

BTW, How is your lying folk hero, the Mad Hatter in Washington, doing with his murderous illegal war in the Middle East? Well, its at least stopped everyone talking about the hanky-panky show of Donald and his best buddy Jeffo'. BTW, weren't you a Rolf Harris supporter on this forum? Tie me kangaroo down sport, if I'm wrong.

Hi John Daysh and mhaze,

"Do you have a breakdown of what's included in the 137 per 1000? For example, does that count teachers, nurses, police, and local government staff, or only administrative civil servants?"

Can these numbers be made better or worse by outsourcing?

I'm thinking about carers, for the disabled and elderly.
I'm not sure if they count, but you stated 'nurses' John, and if they're included then carers are in the same kind of ballpark.

I believe you were dismissed for incompetence, during the Whitlam years, and have hated the PS, Gough and the Labor party ever since
Paul1405,
You keep saying that & it's time you told us where you got this from. I was never in the Public Service during the Whitlam years & I don't hate the Labor Party. Simple reason is that there's no Labor Party & it's in fact the ALP that is letting the Nation down, not Labor.
Regarding the 95% of PS needing to be sacked is something you keep latching onto despite my several explanations to as recent as a couple of days ago, Bureaucrats are the major bulk of that not the average working PS. As for "facilitating' welfare & Pension payments, some of them also facilitating mismanagement as we have experienced during Robodebt.
Again, I'll make the point to you that Public Servants are not bureaucrats & to throw them into the same basket is grossly unfair to genuine PS doing their job !

AC,

That's a really good point. I hadn't even thought of that. And it complicates matters for mhaze immensely!

If a government delivers services directly through public institutions, those workers appear in the public sector employment numbers.

If the same services are delivered through private providers funded by government programs, the workers show up in private sector employment instead.

In both cases the services still exist and are still being funded by government, but the employment statistics look very different.

It's yet another reason why aggregate “public employees per 1000 people” figures can be tricky to interpret.

The beauty of it is that no matter what the data there shows, the crack will only widen for mhaze.

Its unnecessary to justify the public service, unless you believe like some far right ratbags here that private can do it better, which of course is a lie.

Trumpster,

Can you give the figures for like countries to Australia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland. They didn't make your list, why is that? Could it be that they have a large public service, and a better quality of life for their citizens than the cherry picked mob you put up. And nothing to say about the bloated number of Coalition "private consultants" that Labor has got rid of, and saved billions! What about the scandal that was those consultants like PWC among others ripping of the taxpayer.

"Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC) has been embroiled in a massive scandal, primarily centred on its Australian branch, involving the misuse of confidential government information for commercial gain. The scandal, which began to surface in early 2023, has resulted in significant fallout, including investigations, high-level resignations, and a major loss of government business."

USA 63 public servants per 1000 people. Including 20,000 ICE agents who shoot their own citizens in cold blood!

Struth, how many nurses do you think the Feds employ? I say Public Servants and the usual apologists for all things government, immediately want to talk about nurses and police. It like a child who enters the discussion about the jungle by wanting to talk about fluffy lion cubs.

FYG, the Feds employ almost no nurses and few police. They're state functions. How much do you NOT know about how the world works?

FYI these are the rough breakdowns...

Services Australia (Centrelink, Medicare etc): ~51,000–53,000+ (largest overall, focused on payments and customer service).

Australian Taxation Office (ATO): ~21,000–22,000.
.
Department of Defence (civilian staff only; excludes uniformed ADF): ~21,000.

Department of Home Affairs : ~16,000.

National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA): ~15,000 Primarily admin.

Australian Electoral Commission (AEC): ~5000+.

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: ~7,000.

Other eg DFAT, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations etc ~55000+ (almost entirely admin).

The Feds are about admin, not direct service delivery. After all they have a Department of Education that administers NO schools.

And remember, despite the hope among the apologists that the services are being delivered efficiently (hope because there is zero evidence of it) there is still the certainty that, per capita, we are using more people at more cost than almost any other nation on earth. Quick say the apologists, let's whistle pass that unwanted fact.

We as a nation are in serious financial straights and the one thing we can say with certainty is that employing more governmental administrators isn't going to get us out of the mess created by the governing classes over the last decade or so.

But go on. Please tell me more about all the wonderful jobs the nurses that the Feds don't employ are doing.

OTOH, if you now want to pivot to talking about the efficacy of the state governments who actually do deliver these services, then that's a whole different kettle of fish because they make the Feds look like a model of prudent spending. For example, we are also a world champion in terms of the number of nurses employed percapita.

"unless you believe like some far right ratbags here that private can do it better, which of course is a lie."

Of course its a lie </sarc>. I'd ask Paul for evidence but alas...its Paul so that'd be futile.

"Can you give the figures for like countries to Australia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland."

No. They are in the EU which takes on some of their governmental duties and therefore makes direct comparison with Australia impossible. BTW, I said from the outset that I did my research on G20 countries.

___________________________________________________________________

I'm providing all sorts of numbers. Everyone else is saying things like 'maybe this' and 'maybe that, and 'I hope its this or that' without the faintest attempt to quantify or even qualify the 'maybes'. And then laughably saying, mhaze is wrong.

I guess it how the thinking goes on the left.

Trumpster,

"We as a nation are in serious financial straights" That is your assertion not fact! If the level of national debt is your metric for serious financial straights, what is the cause of this serious financial difficulties, must be our our AAA credit rating.

"As of late 2025 and early 2026, a small group of nations holds a AAA credit rating—the highest possible—from major agencies (S&P, Moody's, Fitch), indicating extremely low risk of default. Key countries include AUSTRALIA, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, and Switzerland."

Oh dear, Trumps America doesn't get a mention in the AAA's, must be a bad risk!

Maybe the Trumpster is on about national debt as a percentage of GDP, Australia 43% Trumps America 124% Japan a basket case 237%, even the Trumpster's land of milk and honey, Argentina 83%.

Trumpster, how are you going with those figs for Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland.
Are you to embarrassed by your pathetic cherry picking!

What about the 50,000 rip off private consultants Labor has arse holed, including the criminals from the private consultants, they made the actions of the CFMEU look like lunch money theft.

That's generally true of federal governments though, mhaze.

//The Feds are about admin, not direct service delivery.//

Their role is mostly policy, regulation and program administration, while the direct service delivery happens at state and local levels.

The original comparison you posted was public employees per capita across whole national systems (federal, state and local combined). The breakdown you've now given is only the federal layer, which is a different question.

So when discussing the international comparison, the relevant comparison is the entire public sector workforce, not just the APS.

//The bloating of the APS is PART of that.//

The point I've been raising is that the figures cited show growth in headcount, but they don't really tell us whether that growth reflects unnecessary administrative expansion or the administration of new programs and regulatory responsibilities.

One other thing that often gets overlooked in these discussions is that APS staffing today isn't unusually large in historical terms. In the early 1990s the APS employed roughly 160,000 people when Australia's population was about 17 million. Today it's roughly 185,000 with a population of around 26 million.

In per-capita terms that's actually a slightly smaller federal public service than three decades ago.

The key question would really be where that growth occurred - whether it was concentrated in policy and administrative layers, or in agencies responsible for delivering and administering specific programs.

That doesn't settle the efficiency question one way or the other, but it does suggest the issue is more complicated than simply counting administrators.

"Can you give the figures for like countries to Australia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland."

"No. They are in the EU which takes on some of their governmental duties and therefore makes direct comparison with Australia impossible."

Why have you got France, Germany and Italy in your list if as you say, EU membership makes direct comparison with Australia impossible.

"I'd ask Paul for evidence"

Answer PWC!

"55000+ (almost entirely admin)." how would you know Trumpster, making it up most likely, believing it to be true. Got any evidence.

Here's a corker from the Trumpster!

"they (Federal government) have a Department of Education that administers NO schools." Does have 1,400 employee's (didn't tell us that), the NSW Department of Education, has schools and 100,000 employees.

A footnote for the Trumpster; "The Federal Department of Education administers roughly $51 billion annually for schools and higher education." Not bad with only 1,400 employees Australia wide.

In its last year in office the Morrison government paid out $21 billion to external consultants and contractors, equivalent to 54,000 public sector employees. $537 million to PWC alone, $5,500 per day, a mob who were shown to be ripping the taxpayers off!

"The point I've been raising is that the figures cited show growth in headcount, but they don't really tell us whether that growth reflects unnecessary administrative expansion or the administration of new programs and regulatory responsibilities."

No. What the figures tell us is that the numbers show that Australia requires more public servants across the board to deliver services than any other G20 nation on earth - sometimes a lot more.

Now all the hand-waving about quality of service and how many nurse and police are delivered is just unquantified hope trying to justify a bloated public sector in a nation that can't afford a bloated public sector.

(BTW, I could provide figures showing that Australia requires a higher number of nurses per capita than either the US - boo private medicine - or the UK - hooray public medicine - but it seems numbers and actual data is superfluous to needs for those who just adhere to the notion that bigger government is better government.)

" If the level of national debt is your metric for serious financial straights". Well it is small part of it. But using the credit rating as evidence that it doesn't matter simply showing a lack of understanding how the system works. The credit rating simply shows the likelihood of default. We won't default because we still have a lot of stuff we can hock to the world when the sh!t hits the fan. That's all the credit agencies are saying.
The bigger problem is the lack of economic dynamism in the economy. Productivity rates are abysmal due to inherent inefficiencies in the system (see all above) and the singular reluctance to address on-going problems which might not be electorally acceptable

According to the Trumpster, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland cannot be compared to Australia, and he tells us; They are in the EU which takes on some of their governmental duties and therefore makes direct comparison with Australia impossible. YET, he includes France, Germany and Italy who are also EU members. The Trumpster cherry picks those countries that he thinks suit his argument.

WHAT ABOUT, those "private consultants" nothing to say about them!

You were shot down in flames about the education department. 1400 Federally no schools, NSW 114,000 with schools 100 times more! What a Wally! Australia has about 2.5 million public servants, 85% ARE NOT EMPLOYED BY THE COMMONWEALTH.

One Forum Old Fart, believes the bloke who picks up his garbage on a Monday morning is a bureaucrat, and should be sacked. That's the same Old Fart who gets a fat aged welfare payout every fortnight, and has done for years, thanks to the hard work of Commonwealth Public Servants! I know who should be sacked.

That's the interpretive step I'm disputing, mhaze.

//What the figures tell us is that the numbers show that Australia requires more public servants across the board to deliver services than any other G20 nation on earth//

The figures show Australia has a higher number of publicly classified employees per capita on your G20 comparison. They do not, by themselves, show that Australia "requires" more staff "across the board" due to inefficiency, rather than because services are structured, funded or classified differently.

"Requires more public servants" is already a diagnosis, not just a description. To establish that, you'd need comparative evidence on administrative overhead, productivity, or staffing by function, not just the aggregate ranking.

Likewise, saying productivity is poor "due to" these staffing levels is another causal claim that would need to be demonstrated rather than assumed.

All you've done is double down on your original leap, but with extra flourish this time.

"All you've done is double down on your original leap, but with extra flourish this time."

And what you've done is assert that there is a plethora of stuff that is unknown and unknowable and that obviates everything that is known and is knowable. The adult world is working with incomplete data to achieve desired outcomes.

I reject as the path to ruin the notion that, since we can't know with certainty why Australia has a bigger public sector than the rest of the G20, we shouldn't do anything about it. That type of lax thinking is how we end up with a bloated bureaucracy. And a bloated bureaucracy is how we end up with a moribund private sector.

That isn't the argument I've made, mhaze.

I haven't said "we can't know anything" or "we shouldn't do anything". I've said that an aggregate ranking, by itself, doesn't tell us what exactly is excessive, inefficient, or in need of reform.

If the concern is administrative bloat, then the obvious question is where it sits. Without that, "do something about it" risks meaning little more than cutting blindly and hoping for the best.

Working with incomplete data is normal. Treating incomplete data as if it already identifies the cause is a different matter.

The figures you've cited support the claim that Australia has a relatively large public sector on your G20 comparison. They don't, by themselves, establish which parts are bloated or that this is the cause of private-sector weakness.

Try again.

"I've said that an aggregate ranking, by itself, doesn't tell us what exactly is excessive, inefficient, or in need of reform"

Of course I never said it did, but please tell me more about what I didn't say.

The aggregate simply shows a society where efficiency is no longer valued and that is why we have a society where economic low growth is baked in.

More indisputable proof that Public Servants must not be allowed to vote !

I wasn't suggesting you explicitly said that, mhaze.

//Of course I never said it did, but please tell me more about what I didn't say.//

My point was simply that an aggregate ranking by itself doesn't identify where inefficiency lies or what specifically needs reform. Sounds like someone's getting rather defensive.

//The aggregate simply shows a society where efficiency is no longer valued//

That's quite a large conclusion to draw from a single statistic. The figure shows Australia has relatively high public sector employment per capita on your G20 comparison. It doesn't, by itself, demonstrate that inefficiency is widespread or that an entire society no longer values efficiency.

"I wasn't suggesting you explicitly said that, mhaze."

A retreat of sort, which is about all we can expect from JD.

mhaze,

It wasn't a retreat. It was simply clarifying the point being made.

The issue remains the same: an aggregate employment ranking doesn't by itself establish the cause of productivity or growth outcomes.

Back to you.

This idiotic system could be knocked on the head by simply replacing anti incumbent Government bureaucrats with new people. Bring the Public Service back to being a service instead of a wealth guzzling empire building club !

Indy,

Back from up north, spent time in Townsville, catch up with the nephew and family, living there. Didn't get a chance to catch you in your tree, called into Cairns for one night. They need to do better with the treatment of Indigenous folk there, probably need a few more public servants to straiten things out. You would agree?

Trumpster,

How is your GREAT PEACEMAKER the Warmongering child killing, Donald doing these days. Let his murdering Zionist mate Netanyahu kill tens of thousands of innocent people in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran, and Trump thinks he should get the Nobel Peace Prize. What do you think? Sorry you don't think anything of "enemies" being slaughtered by the thousands, do you?