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