Lets debate, some will say deliver by privatization some via Government delivery.
Other will use the governments wank word bingo idea of partnerships, we do however need to review why we fail so badly.
Public transport DOCS any government delivered service has holes in it look at NSW hospitals and transport just to start us of.
I think my loyalty To my party can not be blind, I expect far better than endless news about failures.
lets talk who has a plan to deliver true reform to government services , removing one government is not an answer they all use more white wash than seek improvements.

Privatize? that drives service improvements we know that, but prices rise faster than the improvements.
So government run only? I do not think it works, it can but at present it fails us see DOCs see the health systems of Victoria NSW and QLD.
So partnerships? just some thing Polly's do to make it look like they are doing something.
Why not something brand new? even Socialism if it had enough support would demand better results than we are getting wouldn't it?
Lets start with accountability for all government run things.
Maybe contract management paid on results not throw away millions just results based pay.

"partner" relationships has seen some outstanding failures, have resulted always in the tax payer paying.
Is it because private enterprise has better advice?
Is it a polli plot to raise friends interests, profits?
Writing contracts is indeed a skill that appears to be lacking in Aussie govt's.
Surely they should have better outcomes than we have so far seen?
fluff4

Belly, "Maybe contract management paid on results not throw away millions just results based pay."

One problem with that is setting suitable terms for the required results.

- Is it dividends paid to the government to help them fund the next election?
- Is it short term cost cutting with long term consequences (lack of maintenance, getting rid of staff who care etc)?
- Is it actually building the service to provide the best service at a realistic cost?
It seems that it's difficult to genuinely measure performance when all the players in a position to influence the outcome have a vested interest in short term outcomes.

I've often thought that management performance pays should be calculated and paid some years out from the period for which they are relevant to. If management performance pays were based on how the company was performing 5 years from when management decisions were taken we might get a different approach.

Would managers run companies into the ground for the sake of short term cost savings if their performance pay was likely to be calculated after the company went belly up (no reference to you intended) or when it was in the period of massive expenditure to recover from work not done some years before?

R0bert

As most know I from left of center, that is ALP center unity [right faction]
My NSW government is letting me down.
Those from my side of politics should and mostly do understand we should be results driven in services.
I did actually work in a NSW government department for 22 years.
It must embarrass them that as a senior union delegate I pushed for workplace reform
Seeking job security for workers by doing the job once doing it right.
On my wall is a state leadership award for leadership.
It was a lie! leadership and job improvements are outlawed in that blind useless department.
I saw clearly the public service section of that place was nothing less than an anchor.
While senior management had great engineering skills , but none in the Field they did 90% of their work, management.
What ever the answer any one who knows by working in such departments the truth, they are wasters of cash who are getting worse, knows we must have change.
I ask my left of center mates to remember we wanted government run services for the services sake, nothing can convince me we wanted reduced services and increased costs.
Victoria under that man got rid of public transport and the subsidy was 250 million per year, now service is worse and it costs twice that.
An answer exists what is it?

RObert it has taken me a couple of days to come up with an answer to your idea.
Management is the problem in the public administration of such agency's, the public service is an unproductive add on.
Maybe 6 month contracts, reviews that say clearly you are not producing ,for every layer of management.
We need to understand the horrible truth of how it now is ,dreadful.
In reward for being, in my view , the best ever finish grader operator, 25 years ago management promoted a bloke to be the worst ever Foreman!
His replacement on the grader became the worst ever grader operator.
That same manager, could have been any one of them, bought back a failed tested method of filling holes after rain, it failed again!
he reinstalled the old system, but his replacement, he got promoted ,bought back his failures!
He informed me and every team leader he would do the thinking for us!
A firm was bought in to review just what a section of road was made of, they hired an ex long term employee who told them what gravel from what quarrie was used over the last 25 years , you and I paid for it twice.
I doubt any government department is much different.
So quality management better wages better accountability, no ties to sluggish public service and hire managers to manage not engineers.

promotion is rarely good when based on skills that are not management skills, thats why wo's are so valued in the army, someone says thats whats needed, wo get it done.
Sometimes it leads to someone being promoted to a state of incompetence, promoted to the place he learns to hate most for the afore said reasons.

How to promote effectively sometimes means the longest serving is not the way to go! management of labor, like management of oneself, is a skill underestimated in my opinion. Wish I new then what I know now.
fluff4