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 !