Pericles, we are in full agreement about the need for better efficiency, and about some aspects of the public service or of government as a whole going a little off the rails from time to time!

But don’t you think we need more rather than less public service effort in health, education, public infrastructure, environmental management, and just about every other area?

We are seeing more and more privatisation of public services. But despite the inefficiencies in the public service, costs have generally increased, due to the profit motive of private enterprise.

So surely it is better to keep the public service very broad rather than to whittle it right down.

Now, I really can’t see how you could question the environmental management part of the public service. This is one area that we most definitely need a very strong regulatory regime, and the personnel to uphold it.

I would have thought that the benefits are obvious, in terms of environmental health, stopping soil erosion, large-scale land-clearing, pollution, overexploitation, threats to rare species, etc, etc, all of which are very important to a lot of people and indeed to our future wellbeing.

The fact that you do question the importance of my line of work within the public service indicates to me that you are not seeing the real issues here nor addressing the things that really need reform.

As I tried to point out, Ludwig, we are polar opposites in our views on the fundamental value of government.

And the problem is those barnacles.

>>...don’t you think we need more rather than less public service effort in health, education, public infrastructure, environmental management, and just about every other area?<<

That's a bit like saying, let's grow some more barnacles. "What we are doing is inefficient, so we should just do the same things, only more so." The nature of the beast, don't forget, is to reward itself first. Give a department head more money, and they will go out and hire a bunch more people so that their salary level increases in line with the "greater responsibility". And don't tell me it doesn't happen, because it does.

If a business decides it needs to be more efficient, guess what it does? It takes a long, hard look at which parts of the business are creating value, eliminates those that are inefficient and invests in those that are delivering. The Board generally takes a pretty dim view of a manager who says "I'm really very inefficient, but if you give me more money I'll get better."

>>Now, I really can’t see how you could question the environmental management part of the public service.<<

That's like saying "I really can’t see how you could question the health service part of the public service." I can't question the concept, because I believe in a basic level of universal care. But that doesn't stop me objecting to the fact that there are more administrators sitting on their backsides in an office with an in-tray and an out-tray, than there are workers in the hospitals looking after patients.

But you have piqued my curiosity. I confess to knowing very little about "the environmental management part of the public service". Who benefits from the work they do, and how is it measured?

And please, don't say "everyone benefits". You must have a ton of real-life examples for us to work with.

Incidentally, the disappearance of "endangered species" moves me not at all.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/greens-stay-silent-after-abject-elections-20120912-25sn8.html
A very good read/review of the greens.
It is not a simple dislike of them, not mud slinging.
Rather like a lot of us here, it looks only at them for reason to like or not.
Of special interest to me? they lost ground in the very high income areas they grew from.
And won small but gains still, support in struggle street.
A warning, former members of the lost green tribe, are infiltrating other partys or running as independents, trying to avoid the inevitable.

<< …the problem is those barnacles. >>

Pericles, you seem to think that the efficiency of the public service is a constant and is unimprovable. So if we have a bigger PS, we will automatically have a bigger level of waste.

And if we get your desired big reduction in the PS, we will have much less misused or inefficiently used public money, end of story. The reduction of services that would accompany it doesn’t seem to matter to you.

I would have thought that you’d be pushing for considerably improved efficiency rather a much smaller PS.

<< What we are doing is inefficient, so we should just do the same things, only more so. >>

Hmmm, and yet in my last post I said:

< …we are in full agreement about the need for better efficiency… >

So um, does the same apply to your desired cuts? Again, I would have thought you’d want real improvements in efficiency to accompany any cuts so that the level of service provision wouldn’t decline significantly.

<< I can't question the concept, because I believe in a basic level of universal care. But that doesn't stop me objecting to the fact that there are more administrators sitting on their backsides in an office with an in-tray and an out-tray, than there are workers in the hospitals looking after patients. >>

So push for improvements in efficiency, not just holus bolus reductions in the size of this sector and of the whole PS!

continued

<< But you have piqued my curiosity. I confess to knowing very little about "the environmental management part of the public service". Who benefits from the work they do, and how is it measured? >>

I find this question quite extraordinary. I think I basically answered it in my last post. Come on, what do you think would happen if we had no environmental regulations?

Think of pollution, land degradation, unsustainable productivity and unsustainable ecosystems, and the old aggressive-and-ruthless-rule-the-roost syndrome would apply while those who care about the environment would be put at a huge disadvantage.

<< Incidentally, the disappearance of "endangered species" moves me not at all. >>

DEAR oh dear!!

Do you feel the same about the other things I mentioned in my last post?:

< …environmental health, stopping soil erosion, large-scale land-clearing, pollution, overexploitation… >

I asked first, Ludwig.

>> Come on, what do you think would happen if we had no environmental regulations?<<

But my question was deliberately phrased as:

>>Who benefits from the work they do, and how is it measured? And please, don't say "everyone benefits". You must have a ton of real-life examples for us to work with<<

Unfortunately, your blanket claim that your absence would result in:

>>...pollution, land degradation, unsustainable productivity and unsustainable ecosystems, and the old aggressive-and-ruthless-rule-the-roost syndrome<<

...carefully avoids the question entirely.

I am trying to ease ourselves away from such broad generalities, and focus on some instances where the benefits are measurable. The reason behind this approach is that from the outside, it looks as though there are literally hundreds of departments at all levels of government whose original justification has been lost in the mists of time. All that is left is the "we're here, because we're here, because we're here" mantra.

This is the circular argument that I alluded to before: "the government does these things because it is the government's job to do these things".

I need more concrete evidence, before I shift my stance that a) government departments are inherently inefficient, b) that increasing the size of those departments will increase the wastage, and c) that there is a whole heap of activities that those departments perform, that provide negative economic benefit to our country.