The best public servants are those who know they are public servants.

Yeah, I'm still not sold on the idea of a privatised defence force, fire brigade etc.

But computers are getting pretty good these days; I reckon you could replace most the bean-counters, pencil-pushers and chair-warmers with computers programmed to count beans, automatic pencil moving devices and hot water bottles. Mind you, I think that applies in private enterprise as well - seems to me there's a lot of people out there sat at desks essentially doing sod all except keeping a watchful eye over a computer in case it chucks a wobbly.

Philip S,
>You have outdone your ignorance here,
Looks like you're having some pronoun trouble there!

>I have given you the figures as provided in the article which equates out to close to 1
> public servant per 12.5 people so that is okay by your understanding of economics.
Why wouldn't it be? I want government to be efficient and capable. Those figures neither support nor undermine any claims about whether it is currently either of those things.

>Your first mistake is to believe the figures,
So you think the figures are disastrous but you don't believe them.
Is your disbelieving the figures the reason you think they're disastrous?

Your comprehension's very poor. I never told you I believed the figures, nor even made any claim which rests on the assumption that they're correct.

>you could easily add 100 to 200 thousand to that figure but you are just trying to be a SA,
I am proud to be a South Australian!

>which you fail at.
All I've failed at in this thread is getting you to explain the premise you started with. There appears to be a pattern here - you haven't explained the reasons for your fear on the UN thread as well.

>How many would be still classed as public servants if there jobs were not contracted out,
>they are still doing the exact same job they were before but now are paid by a contracted
>organization which gets the money from the Government plus extra for admin costs.
At long last you're starting to think!

There's a widespread perception that smaller government is more efficient government. But in reality it's not so simple. Cutting staff for its own sake often leads to false economies, with government departments often having to engage consultants to do the work for twice the price. Also the quality of the work can suffer.

Governments employ people to do things. If you have a problem with that, let us know what it is. All we've seen so far is that you don't like the numbers - but that's your problem, not ours.

but that's your problem, not ours. Troll remark.

>Troll remark.

No, a statement of fact. You've had ample opportunity to explain why you consider those numbers to be "a recipe for disaster" but every single time you passed it up, often resorting to ad hominem and baseless accusations. Indeed you still have the opportunity to tell us why your dislike of the numbers is Australia's problem. Though I'm expecting you not to, as it seems to be driven by pure gut instinct, oblivious to inconvenient facts.

I mentioned before that I wanted government to be efficient and capable. One of the best examples of why this is desirable was the School Halls Scheme. Despite a few idiots on this board swallowing Tony Abbott's lie that it was an unmitigated disaster everywhere, the actual situation varied by state. In Victoria and NSW, where oversight was contracted out to the private sector, the waste was as bad as Abbott said. But in the rest of Australia, where the state governments oversaw it themselves, they achieved quite good value for money. And in WA, where there was a much higher level of scrutiny, they achieved excellent value for money.

Aidan "but that's your problem, not ours."

Not ours, since when were you designated as spokesperson for others?

Qualified troll who is delusional enough to think he is able to speak for others.

Just out of interest who has given you the job of speaking on there behalf.