I wrote; “The answer is resources and goals or outcomes.”

Yabby replied; “Yup but there is a limit to the resources that hard working taxpayers are prepared to cough up.”

So the first point is to match the task with the resources. It is a fundamental role of government to make sure that their revenue base matches or exceeds the expenditure that is needed to uphold a decent quality of life and equity in the community, and not just in the short term.

That’s as basic as all buggery. But it doesn’t happen very effectively at all. So the primary issue in this discussion, as I see it, is a very hard one to deal with. And it is rapidly getting worse, right at the time when we need a strong rule of law, in the face of mounting pressures that threaten to unravel the fabric of society.

Beyond that, I agree with you – there is plenty scope for better management and accountability in much of the public service….just as there is in the private sector.

In my experience, there have been some woeful examples of management, which have taken a considerable toll on my motivation at work and on my quality of life. And my best efforts to deal with them have not met with good results.

But I think that we also need to accept that things are never going to be ideal or even particularly close to it. It is just one of our human foibles that management and efficiency are all too often well short of the best level.

I hope Ludwig is not feeling too disappointed with the seeming slowness of this discussion to take off. It is, after all, an important question, and he did the right thing in separating it from the comments thread to the article 'Ideas the engine of new growth' by Federal Minister for Small Business Craig Emerson, even though it had legitimately emerged in that thread.

Could I suggest that one reason for the slowness of take-off may be due to the dearth of authoritative commentators? Persons who have been eyewitness to the application of regulatory process generally tend to be bound by professional ethics not to reveal details, especially at times when such revelations might assist in attaining a just outcome. Persons who have been the subject of regulatory process have generally been utterly disillusioned to the point of walking away from the field, or personally destroyed by the determinations made. Regulators, in general, tend to leave no witnesses behind.

There is an important difference between 'law' and 'regulation'.

Law is objective, and set in concrete as to its applicability at the time in question. You can know where you stand, and plan accordingly; you have rights. Regulation, the process, as distinct from printed regulations published under an Act, is inherently subjective. You can never know where you stand, and consequently cannot plan with confidence in reliance upon your own abilities; you have no rights.

I would like to ask how good our regulatory regime has been shown to be in this case I first became aware of on OLO. This is the article: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7215

This is a comment to that article I made in April 2008: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7215#110649

Charges were laid by the regulator, the ACCC, in June 2008.

Here is a commentary by a well-known law firm upon that case to date: http://www.mallesons.com/publications/2008/Sep/9586437w.htm Read it and tell me how good our regulatory regime is.

I have no connection with the accused. Yet.

Apologies Ludwig for not catching this thread earlier..

My view on government regulation at all levels is

It should be up for regular review and subject to sunset clauses which declare it defunct if it is not reviewed.

We are not the chattels of the state.
We do not need bureaucrats deciding anything for us.
Worthwhile legislation is there to balance disproportionate power which may exist, not to become a source of disproportionate power ; the basic argument against governments running commercial businesses, where conflict of interest will prevail against the individual through institutionalization of government monopolies.

Regarding “Serving the needs of the community most definitely mean directing people to do certain things and preventing them from doing others.”

The problem with that is who should decide what is actually “Serving the needs of the community” when lobby groups influence the shape and nature of regulation?

I remain skeptical of anyone promoting the merits of government simply being to ‘serve the needs’ when we could ask everyone and their expectation of ‘needs’ would each be completely different and where ‘needs’ gets mixed up with ‘wants’.

One of my primary needs is to make my own way in life. excessive regulations mitigate against that need.

Too many people expect government to shelter them not only from exploitation of monopolies and undue abuses of power (like I also need) but expect government to also shelter them from the outcomes of their own stupidity, which they should really be responsible for.

Example… someone came here recently and lobbied for help for those on fixed interest rate mortgages

Forrest, yes I am a bit disappointed by the lack of interest in this subject. One of my major themes on OLO is law and liberties, particularly the mismatch between the written law and policing of the law. I am dismayed after broaching this theme in relation to a number of different subjects (road safety, nude beaches, environmental regulations, police, public service, etc), that the responses are pretty minimal.

I would have thought that this sort of stuff would be of major concern for just about everyone….and that a forum such as this would be full of such discussions. Afterall, we all need to know just where we stand with the law, and know that it applies fairly to all…don’t we?

Anyway, I thank you for your interest here.

“There is an important difference between 'law' and 'regulation'. “

I’m not so sure about that. The law is not set in concrete if different or inconsistent interpretations or the blind-eye treatment are practiced by the police and other regulators, which is very often the case. The law is effectively what is practiced, condoned, accepted or tolerated, not what is written in black and white in legislation or council bylaw literature. Of course, there should be no difference, but there is, sometimes to a very significant extent…much to my great disgust!

It certainly seems like there are some fundamental problems with the Visa and Amcor alleged collusion case. But I then this is a very difficult area of law.

I’m much more concerned about simple regulations, which are black and white in written law and even black and white in advice given by regulators, but then not so black and white in practice. Examples: speed limits and nude bathing on some Queensland beaches.

VISY, you moron Ludwig….not Visa !!

Fwaark |:>(

God that pisses me off! It was Visy when I wrote it, Visy when I proof-read it.........and Visa when I came back some hours later and read it again!!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.