Imagine if the next government were to run a public competition for ideas on how to reduce government by 10 percent in one year? Perhaps the winner's prize could be a one-off share in the amount by which spending is reduced?

It seems everyone has a gripe with the dysfunctionality of government, so I imagine lots of constructive ideas would come out of the population.

For starters the ABC should be abolished. How can state-funded broadcast media be anything other than an instrument of biased statist propaganda, which is exactly what the ABC serves up, 24/7, ad nauseam.

Ten percent of the government wages bill is flex-time, because the gubbas usually get one day off a fortnight. Who else gets paid to stay at home and call it work? These bludgers should be first in line for a haircut for the good of the public they claim to be serving.

Next up, how about we amend the Trade Practices Act, to include banning misleading and deceptive conduct in politics or government, same as in trade or commerce? The people should have the right to sue any politician for damages for any misrepresentation or false and misleading statement, just the same as any other person is liable for false statements they benefit from at other people's expense.

We have seen in OLO over and over again that, when put to it, the climate alarmists are completely unable to provide any rational defence of their belief system in favour of government intervention. That portfolio should be abolished and tax reduced accordingly.

Okay, let's pretend you get one percent of all the money saved by your suggestions: how do you think we should reduce the size of government by 10 percent in one year?

I have some concerns about the whole deck of cards/facts?
It is not true! that we pay for flexy time!
And pointless trying to convince/tell the truth to some.
FLEXABLE HOURS still need those hours to be worked.
Trust me I was and in my heart remain, a union official.
Next, before the Butcher comes!
Enterprise bargaining see,s both boss and unions sit to agree on INCREASED productivity or key performance indicators, in return for wage increases.
Boss brings the KPI,s Union the wages claim.
Construction, and most industrys got a RDO Rostered Day Off every month.
IF via a bosses wants or unions, that has changed, EXTRA TIME is worked.
In return for a second long weekend, BUT THE TIME IS WORKED
Your thread, in my view needs first to look at what trade offs can be used to increase and improve public service out comes, then reduce by natural attrition numbers.
Cutting the head of a dieing tree still kills it but good planning/out comes can see it thrive, a new accountable public service must be looked for.

I think it is completely wrong to set as a goal to reduce government by any amount. It is more reasonable to ask two questions.

1. What is government not doing that should be done?

2. What is government doing that should not be done by government or simply should not be done?

We all have different answers to those questions. However, the answer to the first question increases the size of government. The answer to the second decreases the size of government. If both questions are answered well government may either increase or decrease depending on the answers.

I disagree with JKJ. The part of government that deals with climate change, public education and supports the ABC is important to keep. The part of government that supports chaplains in schools, subsidising non-public schools, supports sports, Olympics and the like other than sports in schools, subsidises logging and other environmentally destructive activities and supports the arms trade by AIDEX should all be abolished

Who said Thatcher was dead, she has been reincarnated in Oz and is now posting on this forum as JKJ. J, as an arch conservative you are so predictable with tiresome comment like "For starters the ABC should be abolished." then this little chestnut "Ten percent of the government wages bill is flex-time", you either know that statement is a lie, or more likely you speak from a point of ignorance.
Belly, here I go agreeing with you once more, starting to become a habit.
"Enterprise bargaining see,s both boss and unions sit to agree on INCREASED productivity or key performance indicators, in return for wage increases." wages and conditions, correct my friend. The true agenda of the JKJ's of this world is, because of their ideological slant, the long term destruction of hard won wages and conditions. Believing such is going into the hands of "the undeserving" resulting in a reduction in profits. In the case of public servants they are seen in their minds eye as a lazy bunch of loafers costing business and themselves through taxation, again impacting on the bottom line. So predictable.

Ok folks, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Leaving aside the obvious ideological biases evident in Jardine K. Jardine's opening post, there is one concept that deserves our full attention:

>>...how about we amend the Trade Practices Act, to include banning misleading and deceptive conduct in politics or government, same as in trade or commerce? The people should have the right to sue any politician for damages for any misrepresentation or false and misleading statement, just the same as any other person is liable for false statements they benefit from at other people's expense.<<

The very first step in the battle we face in controlling our political class, is to hold them specifically accountable for their actions. Make them respect the promises they made in their election manifesto, instead of regarding them as mere advertising puffery. Until and unless we can achieve this, we remain powerless in the face of the party factions, the behind-closed-doors wheeling-and-dealing that perverts the process, and that makes a mockery of our right to vote.

Direct accountability. That should be the people's mantra.

We deserve better. But we won't get better if we continue to allow our politicians to flout the promises they made when canvassing our support.

Come on Jardine, stop mucking about.

Yes the ABC must go, but 10% of the bureaucrats, surely you can do better than that. If half of them didn't turn up for a year or so, & their in boxes were removed, not only would no one but the coffee shop notice, the work would get done quicker, with less yobs to delay things.

Julia has even started with a sensible cut of $1.5Bn to academia Now instead of wasting it on schools, where it will do nothing, apply it to defence,give the navy some ammunition & we should be able to stop the boats, & really start to save.

Even this discussion shows that here is an acceptance that all
believe that there will have to be very severe cutbacks over the next few years.

It is simple really;
"YOU Don't Have the Money !"

ABC must go?
Hasbeen are you aware of the strong links to Australian country towns and the ABC, farmers and their wives would shoot you.
Paul it is a fact enterprise bargaining is the best tool ever invented used with happiness by both boss and unions.
No limits to its flexibility, few know it answers any question you can think of, if both sides agree.
And bosses bought some true reforms that both shocked and pleased me in my past life.
We need to content our selves, the not that far right mob, with the understanding, extremists fail every time.
It a smorgus board this thread, too much to consume in one sitting.
Political reform? no new thought for me.
While I despise the NSW FILTH, we all should be pleased they at the least got exposed.
Maybe the answer id there, dob in a polly, any polly every time.

"The people should have the right to sue any politician for damages for any misrepresentation or false and misleading statemen"
JkJ I agree, but don't start with the ones that only cost us a few bucks. I want all those blood sucking lying Liberal politicians who constantly lied to the Australian people and sent the best of our youth to wars in far off lands for no good reason. Start with Howard, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, the man lied through his teeth. Is he on your list?

Paul may I be a mate?
Mates tell mates the hard truths in life.
Like pull up your zipper .
See that post, looked no different than the few Liberals who nearly hate here.
Never complain about others if you do the same.
Our author, in some posts, is not to be taken as a good source for a start for balanced views.
Do you, or he, think, now tell me, that the public has or ever will have the power to charge a Politician?
Be honest, we do not even get a say in my team who gets to stand.
My thread that drowned almost without comment, a national ICAC with harsh powers,and a mission to stop crime in parliaments and big business was a start.
Untouchables, a dream but a thought I still wish we had and a minimum term mandatory in prison! confiscate all assets from crime always.
Love to visit a few in long bay prison.
But glass houses, think before giving in to your attempts at humor.

Belly, in all honesty how would you or anyone do this; "sue any politician for damages for any misrepresentation or false and misleading statement." If it refers to promises a politician makes and breaks it would be impossible to enforce for obvious reasons. When I made the promise I was committed to keeping it, but circumstance being as they are etc etc. Or, I fully intend to keep my promise, but not just yet. Crazy idea, no one would run for public office.

Paul all we are achieving here is keeping a thread with a red neck base alive so see you in another one.

Paul
"Start with Howard, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, the man lied through his teeth. Is he on your list?"

Sure! He belongs in prison for the rest of his life. Why not? Can you imagine if any private person made the same blatantly false misrepresentations that he did?

The idea that the major parties stand for any kind of significant difference is for gullible fools. They are two wings of the same exploitative class, who live by their double standards in declaring for themselves a necessity, what they criminalise in everyone else as a fraud.

"If it refers to promises a politician makes and breaks it would be impossible to enforce for obvious reasons. "

The obvious reason being that the politicians themselves get to decide whether or not they should be liable for fraudulent misrepresentation. Yet we have people in here flying to their defence when there's any talk of cutting back their fraudulent thieving from the people

A vital first step in making politicians more independent and accountable would be to limit all political donations to a maximum $100. And why should they be tax deductible? Our representatives aren't charitable institutions, or deserving of charity. This is a deliberate incentive for the rich to buy and own governments -whether they be rich individuals, corporations or unions.

For starters FOX should be abolished. How can billionaire broadcast media be anything other than an instrument of biased free market propaganda, which is exactly what FOX serves up, 24/7, ad nauseam.
 
If the free market thrives on competition, why are free marketers afraid of non profit based media?
If there was such a thing as a free market in media, we would have a choice of tens, if not hundreds of independently owned stations, instead of just a very small handful, all supplied through just one carrier -on cable/satellite.
When will libertarians learn that Liberty is a finite resource? The more liberty one person takes (like Murdoch) the less liberty is left in the rest of the market.
In a conversation such as this, I would suggest it might be helpful to automatically replace the words “the government” with the words “the people”. Do we really want 10% less input from “the People”?
(Bureaucracy is a beast of an entirely different colour, and is firstly the product of the People's desire for better service from their government, but largely a product of itself; good representatives should be aware of this, and IF independent, guard against it.)
If the People aren't truly the Government in a democratic society, then we should make it so.
People get the government they deserve. This current mess is entirely the fault of an apathetic, disconnected constituency, which fails to demand better of it's representatives.

Dear Grim,

You wrote: If the People aren't truly the Government in a democratic society, then we should make it so.
People get the government they deserve. This current mess is entirely the fault of an apathetic, disconnected constituency, which fails to demand better of it's representatives.

I disagree with the above. Australia is not a democratic society. It takes more than elections to make a democratic society. To form a representative democracy there must be adequate information for people to make an enlightened choice, an electorate with the tools to make such a choice and elected representatives which consider the wishes of their electorate, their conscience and the good of Australia and the world and not only the dictates of the party room.

None of the foregoing exists. Our media are controlled by a few big interests. For the most part our schools do not educate students in critical thinking and evaluating arguments. Our representatives must in general follow the dictates of the party room.

I think it's unfair to blame the constituency. We did not set up this system and do not deserve this government. Democracy might be good if we had it. I was one of the many who demonstrated against the Iraq War. Howard wanted Australia in the Iraq War so Australia was in the Iraq War. It doesn't matter what we the people demand. Most of us do not have a voice in selecting candidates, and our wishes are ignored in what they do. If we were a democracy it would be fair to blame the constituency, but we are not a democracy.

G'day David f.
How very peculiar. While I largely agree with your points, you seem emphatically opposed to a point I did NOT make.
I never claimed Australia was a Democratic society; or the USA or anywhere else in the 'Western' world, for that matter.
I merely pointed out that “If the People aren't truly the Government in a democratic society, then we should make it so.”
While the current situation may not be our fault, it is still our responsibility; simply because if we the people don't do something, no one will. It's blatantly obvious all our representatives, of every stripe aren't interested in reforming the system which sustains them.
Your reference to Howard in particular is interesting, as -near the end, especially- he was something of a populist. If your -and my- protests went unheard, it could only be because we were outnumbered by that same apathetic, disconnected, silent majority I referred to earlier.
The current “Getup” movement is proving relatively more successful, simply because it allows people to protest with remarkably little effort. In fact, it could be more literally described as “Don't getup”.

Dear Grim,

You did not claim Australia is a democratic country, but you did claim the Australian public is to blame for what is wrong as it is apathetic. However, when one feels that nothing one does will make any difference apathy is quite a reasonable attitude. Our nuclear furnace is casting its benevolent rays on the lomandra, the cycads, the poinciana, the ixora, the mock orange, the bromeliads and me while I write this. There is great human suffering going on in the world at this time. Beulah. peel me a grape. I just got a most friendly email from one of my sons.

I agree with you on getup.

G'day David f,
apathy may be reasonable, but it can't be helpful or effective. Please understand, I'm most certainly not putting myself on the other side of this fence; I'm as prone to apathy as the next person.
Nor, as an egalitarian and democrat, am I suggesting that “the majority must change” (although isn't that precisely the attitude the over achievers, the movers, shakers and formers of our society, take?).
Clearly, if we can't bring the majority to Democracy, then we need to bring Democracy to the majority.
In this techno-info age, that really shouldn't be so challenging. I am suggesting we follow the example of Getup and bring the act of protest -or simple engagement- into people's homes. Imagine the Getup model, operating in every constituency, and making the representative answerable to the claims made.
I also agree with the US's founding fathers, that a constitutional republic offers greater freedom for the majority than a pure (lawless) democracy. Nevertheless, I believe our representatives should be representative, and not public servants by another name.
While I agree with all your points about what the Gov. should and should not be doing, may I point out that they are all more about Gov. expenditure than actual size of the Gov. This I think is more to do with the number and income of bureaucrats. BTW, Jardine (Peter, Wing Ah, K. Hume...)'s point about flexi time is nonsense; flexible time is about being able to work more hours one day in order to work less on another. It doesn't change the hourly rate, and has no effect on the total wage bill.
The only (free market style) way to cut down the size of bureaucratic departments that springs to my mind would be to allocate fixed sums to departments (Department Heads), so they can determine how many employees they share the income with. Unfortunately, like so many free market solutions, it offers no benefit to the comsumers/taxpayers; we'd still be paying the same amount (most of which would be pocketed by the DH), but have more unemployed to cater for.